# Review - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III Lens by TDP



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 20, 2016)

```
The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the brand new Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III. As you would expect from a latest generation Canon L zoom, the lens is a stellar performer and worthy of its hefty price tag.</p>
<p>From Bryan:</p>
<blockquote><p>The MTF charts predicted excellence in regards to 16-35 L III image quality and the good news is that I think you will find that expectation fully delivered. With a pair of Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lenses going through formal and informal testing, we have not been left disappointed. This lens is absolutely razor sharp across the entire full frame sensor at 16mm f/2.8, showing very impressive resolution and contrast. Stopping down makes very little 16mm sharpness difference in the center of the plane of sharp focus. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8L-III-USM-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III is in stock at most retailers listed below.</p>
<p>Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III: <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1274708-REG/canon_ef_16_35mm_f_2_8l_iii.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2bPL0jq">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA16353.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://bit.ly/2bkKGfQ">Canon Store</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f-2-8l-iii-lens.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 20, 2016)

Coma:
_
"Astro photographers are always looking for a better star lens and many of us were anxious to see how this lens performed on this subject. The good news is that this appears to be one of the best lenses yet for this subject. The stars are not perfectly round at 16mm, but they are very well-formed relative to the other options available and the more-centered stars are very sharp. At 24mm, I see faint wings starting to take shape and the brightest stars appear to have wings at 35mm where this lens performs more average."
_
(and there are examples)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 20, 2016)

As far as matching up to the 16-35 f/4L IS (bolded by me for emphasis):

_"Between the large price differential and the versatility of its IS feature, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens is the lens I see competing most strongly against the 16-35 III. The f/4L IS lens performs excellently and it was hard to imagine the 16-35 III besting it substantially in any way. *While I wouldn't call the difference "substantial", as mentioned earlier in the review, the III indeed delivers better image quality at f/2.8 than the f/4L IS does at f/4 and that is very impressive. Stop down and I don't see image quality factoring into the decision process.*"
_
So... dedicated non-astro landscapers should pass on this lens if they already own the 16-35 f/4L IS?

- A


----------



## infared (Oct 20, 2016)

FINALLY!  That is great to know....but at that price...I will just keep my incredible 16-35mm f/4 IS.
The few, the proud, the brave can own this beauty!!!!!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 20, 2016)

Shot this last night with it. This is the first Canon zoom that I've been impressed with for astro work.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 20, 2016)

infared said:


> I will just keep my incredible 16-35mm f/4 IS.



My read as well. I was waiting to see if the 16-35 f/2.8L III would actually outperform the (great) 16-35 f/4L IS, but it appears it is what it is: it's a wider aperture variant of an already great lens (without IS).

So this now looks like the following:

Sports --> f/2.8L III

Events --> f/2.8L III

Reportage --> f/2.8L III

Landscapes --> Either will work brilliantly; if you own the f/4L IS already, keep it and do not buy the 16-35 f/2.8L III 

Hiking/travel --> Weight is king --> f/4L IS

Video --> IS is massive --> f/4L IS

Astro --> Consider the f/2.8L III or stay with third party solutions? (Wait for more coma testing? I don't know if TDP's samples put the question to bed, so I defer to astro people.) 

Architecture --> Not sure either of these 16-35s scratch that itch well, as interiors would likely prefer the 11-24 f/4L and exteriors might speak to a wide T/S lens. 

If you already have a lot of 77mm filter lenses and really hate the prospect of 82mm filters --> f/4L IS

If you don't know what you might be shooting in 5 years, if you shoot a little bit of everything, or if you just want to future proof your purchase --> f/2.8L III (only video or your back (on a hike) suffers with that call)

- A


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 20, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I will just keep my incredible 16-35mm f/4 IS.
> ...



I'll add to your list that the 16-35L III has two faults that I can see other than price: 1) It has a LOT of vignette - not so big a deal for stills, but definitely for video and 2) It has quite a bit of distortion. I just got through with the Zeiss Milvus 18mm review, and the Canon has much more obvious distortion (even 18mm). The Canon is definitely the sharper lens, however.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 20, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Shot this last night with it. This is the first Canon zoom that I've been impressed with for astro work.



Thanks! A lovely shot. Wide open at 16mm? How long was the exposure?


----------



## Memdroid (Oct 20, 2016)

Nice review. IQ is great bit I get a feeling Bryan glanced over the shortcomings a little bit. The price is a little bit too high here in Europe (around $3000). It is a very tempting lens and I wished for this a looooong time to replace my version II with it because I shoot a lot in low light. But the price and increased size (it is HUGE even compared to the 24-70 II) makes me want to hold on to the older version a little longer.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 20, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Shot this last night with it. This is the first Canon zoom that I've been impressed with for astro work.
> ...



That's wide open, f/2.8, 20 second exposure at ISO 1600.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 20, 2016)

Memdroid said:


> Nice review. IQ is great bit I get a feeling Bryan glanced over the shortcomings a little bit. The price is a little bit too high here in Europe (around $3000). It is a very tempting lens and I wished for this a looooong time to replace my version II with it because I shoot a lot in low light. But the price and increased size (it is HUGE even compared to the 24-70 II) makes me want to hold on to the older version a little longer.



What surprised me is that I expected it to be a fair bit smaller than the Tamron 15-30mm - a big lens. It does weigh less, and it is a little bit narrower, but it is pretty much the same size as the Tamron overall.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 20, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Thanks. 20 seconds seems long, but the shot speaks for itself! I hope you do a Samyang 20mm 1.8 review.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 20, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > Nice review. IQ is great bit I get a feeling Bryan glanced over the shortcomings a little bit. The price is a little bit too high here in Europe (around $3000). It is a very tempting lens and I wished for this a looooong time to replace my version II with it because I shoot a lot in low light. But the price and increased size (it is HUGE even compared to the 24-70 II) makes me want to hold on to the older version a little longer.
> ...



A quick comment on the weight-- I tried it out quite a bit at a local camera shop recently and I was very impressed by the weight. It doesn't feel all that substantial in my hands, despite how big and heavy it looks. It weighs less than the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, which is something I didn't expect since it's bigger than the 24-70mm.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 20, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> What surprised me is that I expected it to be a fair bit smaller than the Tamron 15-30mm - a big lens. It does weigh less, and it is a little bit narrower, but it is pretty much the same size as the Tamron overall.



And that non-trivial distinction of having convenient front-filtering. Unless all you do is astro, that's a big deal.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 20, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...


Thanks, Dustin, for this ad hoc example for astro shooters. 
I'mlooking forward to your full review


----------



## j-nord (Oct 20, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > chrysoberyl said:
> ...


Great to hear! I've go my eye out for direct astro comparisons with the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f2.8. 

Im looking at the pro/con of:

16-35 f4 IS + Rokinon 14mm f2.8 + maybe Rokinon 24 f1.4 (I hate this kind of over lap in my lenses)

vs.

16-35 f2.8 iii


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 20, 2016)

Dustin, nice product shots. Hey, can you give us any indication of IQ of the Tamron 15-35 versus the Canon?


----------



## sleepnever (Oct 20, 2016)

Hrmm. I've been holding on to my money for a while, watching this lens go from rumor to announcement to this point where reviews are starting. I also have an alert setup for the 16-35mm f/4L refurb and it has hit < $800 a few times already.

I figured for sure, dropping the extra ~$1k on the f/2.8 III would be a slam dunk choice, especially with the even newer optics. I don't do video and I use a tripod for most of my stuff so IS is not important here. Weight isn't a big deal (I currently haul the 24-70 2.8 MK1 beast and a 100-400 II). I only really wanted the 2.8 over the 4 so that I would have the option (better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, most of the time) of taking in more light and doing some astro and such should I want to. Looks like the new one slacks at the upper 28-35 too. 

Guess I'll wait a little longer and if nothing else, rent it from Lens Rentals. I've already tried the f/4L from them and loved it (though IS was a bit noisy).


----------



## telemaq76 (Oct 20, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Shot this last night with it. This is the first Canon zoom that I've been impressed with for astro work.



same problem than the version II . MAssiv dark corners at 2.8, not that great for nightscape. I ll still prefer my tamron 15-30, but well i m waiting for real tests


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 20, 2016)

telemaq76 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Shot this last night with it. This is the first Canon zoom that I've been impressed with for astro work.
> ...



TDP _does_ real tests for vignetting. Here you go:

f/2.8L III vs. Tamron 15-30:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1073&Camera=979&LensComp=986

f/2.8L III vs. f/2.8L II:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=9&FLI=0&API=0

f/2.8L III (@ f/4) vs. 16-35 f/4L IS:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&FLI=0&API=1

Ouch. That's a clear step in the wrong direction.

It should be noted that the f/2.8L III vignetting tests are reported on a 5DS R while the others are reported on a 1Ds3, but that shouldn't affect vignetting measurements on a same-sized sensor, right?

- A


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 20, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> Dustin, nice product shots. Hey, can you give us any indication of IQ of the Tamron 15-35 versus the Canon?



I've shot that episode but haven't edited or released it yet. I'll be sharing a CR review shortly, and it will cover that.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 20, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> telemaq76 said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Exactly. Bryan's testing of this kind of thing is great. Over 4 stops of vignette in the corners is bad. I think the Tamron's result is probably the upside of that curved front element.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 21, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > telemaq76 said:
> ...


The vignetting actually killed my enthusiasm for the III. Distortion is also a bit underwhelming, but not a dealbreaker.

For wide-field-astro having such dark corners is not ideal. For me, a max of 2 stops of vignette is okay to work with. In order to get to that you'd need the 16-35L III to be stopped down to f/4.5 which kinda defeats the purpose of using a fast lens. I guess I'm gonna just have to wait for a "18/2" or "20/1.8" with low coma and low vignette or something in that focal length that clears up those issues by f/2.8.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 21, 2016)

Again, I don't shoot astro, but I keep hearing the mythical dream astro tool is:
_
Fast + Wide + Coma Free when shot wide open_

...but now I'm hearing it needs to be:

_Fast + Wide + Coma Free when shot wide open + Low Vignetting when shot wide open_

Hayzoose... Each ultrawide that comes out must feel like Lucy with the football for the astro camp. It's Christmas Day that never arrives.

- A


----------



## East Wind Photography (Oct 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Again, I don't shoot astro, but I keep hearing the mythical dream astro tool is:
> _
> Fast + Wide + Coma Free when shot wide open_
> 
> ...



Vignette is not a problem. You can correct in camera with jpg and with most other post tools with RAW. I used this lens to shoot a 1600+ timelapse of the wallops island Antares rocket launch monday night. I used in camera PIC and the results were very flat. Though it wasnt a real good test for stars, the ones i did capture were well formed. Very happy with the lens and look forward to great astro with it.

Now if you plan to use it on an aps-c, the vignette would be even less.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Oct 21, 2016)

telemaq76 said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > Shot this last night with it. This is the first Canon zoom that I've been impressed with for astro work.
> ...



And wih the tamron, you get no in camera peripheral illumination correction...which is a plus for canon lenses.


----------



## Xyxyll (Oct 21, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I don't shoot astro, but I keep hearing the mythical dream astro tool is:
> ...



Please show off your timelapse when complete! I was excited to capture the Antares launch but messed up my long exposure during. Oops! It was a great launch.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 21, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> The vignetting actually killed my enthusiasm for the III. Distortion is also a bit underwhelming, but not a dealbreaker.
> 
> For wide-field-astro having such dark corners is not ideal. For me, a max of 2 stops of vignette is okay to work with. In order to get to that you'd need the 16-35L III to be stopped down to f/4.5 which kinda defeats the purpose of using a fast lens. I guess I'm gonna just have to wait for a "18/2" or "20/1.8" with low coma and low vignette or something in that focal length that clears up those issues by f/2.8.



The vignetting is the same or less (longer focal lengths) than the 16-35 f/4 IS at the same aperture. So the trade compared to the 16-35 f/4 IS is gaining f/2.8 with sharpness better to similar to the 16-35 f/4 IS wide open at f/4 and you lose on IS, size and weight (both increase) and cost.


----------



## Woody (Oct 21, 2016)

Shocking that this lens is actually sharper than the 16-35 f/4L IS, both wide-open.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Again, I don't shoot astro, but I keep hearing the mythical dream astro tool is:
> _
> Fast + Wide + Coma Free when shot wide open_
> 
> ...


To put vignette into perspective lets compare the 35/1.4L II to the 16-35L III:
A) 35mm 6.0s at f/1.4 ISO 3200 and you have 3 stops of vignette 
(after correction, corner IQ is essentially that of ISO 25,600)
B) 16mm 15.0s at f/2.8 ISO 6400 and you have 4 stops of vignette 
(after correction, corner IQ is essentially that of ISO 102,400)

The 24L II has been my wider angle lens option. It also has a massive coma and vignette problems wide open, but by f/2.8 it has mostly cleared up and the vignette greatly improves as well. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&FLI=0&API=1

The 35L II also has a significant vignette wide open but improves greatly by f/2. 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1&LensComp=994&CameraComp=453&FLI=4&API=0

If I need to close down to f/5.6 to get corners within 2 stops of center then I might as well use my TS-E 24mm L II and shift-stitch to get to a 16mm angle of view. With that approach I can get 2x the resolution with stitching compared to a single shot from the zoom which will help make up for the corner softness on the shifts. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1&LensComp=486&CameraComp=453&FLI=0&API=2

Stitching Panoramic shots with the faster primes (stopped down slightly) will give less noise and higher resolution than the 16-35L III.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 21, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Stitching Panoramic shots with the faster primes (stopped down slightly) will give less noise and higher resolution than the 16-35L III.



Similarly layering and averaging multiple shots from the 16-35 will get you the fov and less noise.

There are so many ways to arrive at our desired destination now anybody complaining really is looking for issues, probably where there aren't any.

Having said that if TDP's results are confirmed by others it dies seem like vignetting is high to the point of impacting images if light gathering is your reason for f2.8 and not dof control.


----------



## krisbell (Oct 21, 2016)

Slightly underwhelmed by the results here. Despite the fact I love my 16-35mm f4 I would have upgraded for the added versatility of f2.8 plus a small improvement in IQ. I dont see any improvement here and the added cost and weight is too much to justify the cash outlay.


----------



## M_S (Oct 21, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



As long as the lens correction tool is able to fix that, I am fine with it. Definitly will try this one out. Waited long for this. How does it perform in relation to the Rokinons?


----------



## tron (Oct 21, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I don't shoot astro, but I keep hearing the mythical dream astro tool is:
> ...


You also can just use 16-35 f/4 L IS which is excellent in everything but f/4 (coma, IQ, vignetting) or even use TS-E 17 4L with the same qualities and with shift capability to correct converging verticals (although they are less of a concern for that type of photo - but still a bonus). I have used both in astro shots and my only concern was the f/4...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 21, 2016)

What I think is remarkable compared with the mkII...is the lack of CA. While there's lots of commenataries about the mkII's sharpness wide open (which I've found to be acceptable in most cases), there is little that comment on it's massively bad CA. Every shot needed a high amount of CA correcting, which then came back if a heavy curves were applied. But with the new mkIII....there seems to be almost none. From a CA point of view, it's nearly as good as a TS-e lens. 

With a general use ultra wide, there is always going to be deliberate distortion. If the lens use is assumed to be architecture (TSe 17 for instance, or 11-24L or 14IIL) then Canon would have fully rectilinear corrected it. But for general use, a little distortion is a good thing. It's also very easy to correct in lightroom to taste. The distortion on this lens is a-typical and maybe even a little less than other ultra wides. 

While I'd agree that the vignetting wide open is a little dissapointing, by every other measurable aspect...this lens is amazing and in the same league as the TSe 17L and TSe 24IIL. That's an amazing achievement. 

Ironically...with this lens, we might have found our first real need for a three stop shadow push....on a 5D4...due to the heavy vignetting. Lol....


----------



## Alex_M (Oct 21, 2016)

Sir You cannot do that with 5D4 due to "5 stop mega shadows push banding sensor deffect"! just jocking... 



GMCPhotographics said:


> Ironically...with this lens, we might have found our first real need for a three stop shadow push....on a 5D4...due to the heavy vignetting. Lol....


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 21, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Sir You cannot do that with 5D4 due to "5 stop mega shadows push banding sensor deffect"! just jocking...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We're all ok bud....it's only a three stops vignette 
Apparently, even a lowly 5D mk1 was good for that! But lets not mention the latest Nikon...it'll only upset the fanboys with the yellow camera straps.....


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 21, 2016)

The other thing that's surprising me about this mkIII lens is that it's spanking the Tse-17 for corner sharpness wide open! WOW! Although I do think the tested TS-e 17L is slightly out of spec as mine is a lot sharper than that wide open.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1073&Camera=979&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=487&Sample=0&CameraComp=979&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## LordofTackle (Oct 21, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Sir You cannot do that with 5D4 due to "5 stop mega shadows push banding sensor deffect"! just jocking...
> ...


Actually...it's right in the middle between you guys 

TDP charts shows a 4-stop vignette in the extreme FF corners
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=1073


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Again, I don't shoot astro, but I keep hearing the mythical dream astro tool is:
> _
> Fast + Wide + Coma Free when shot wide open_
> 
> ...



vignetting shouldn't be a problem for astro landscapes - that's an easy correction for anyone with a brain in their head, and astro landscapes are fairly low DR so that isn't an issue.

coma and wide open sharpness is the main thing - but with so many cheap and great primes for this .. see samyang .. why the hell does every lens have to service this niche anyways?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 21, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> coma and wide open sharpness is the main thing - but with so many cheap and great primes for this .. see samyang .. why the hell does every lens have to service this niche anyways?



A couple theories:

1) I believe the astro niche is growing. I have no data to back this up (please forward me some if you do), but I believe interest is growing with enthusiast astrophotography based on the frequency of posts I see on sites like CR. I do not know if it is because... 


Sensors are getting so much better that more folks can give this a go for less money
People always wanted to try but we needed the world to conveniently organize and publish tools, guides, apps, web pages, etc. to walk us through the process
The influence of social media (which tends to fawn over astro work) is so strong
With the rise of cell phone photography, there is a desire for photographers to show-up the cell phone masses with 'this is what a _real_ camera can do'

...but your guess is as good as mine. But it appears that more and more people are trying astro out.

2) Some enthusiasts who dabble at everything don't like owning specialized / niche gear. For the same reason a 'most of the time landscaper' buys a 16-35 f/2.8L III when the lens is overwhelmingly used at f/8, some folks don't like a tool that only does one thing. So there is a quest for an autofocusing / fast / wide lens that shoots astro well but can serve other needs.

- A


----------



## j-nord (Oct 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > coma and wide open sharpness is the main thing - but with so many cheap and great primes for this .. see samyang .. why the hell does every lens have to service this niche anyways?
> ...



I agree most of what ahsanford says here. I'm one who does not want niche/specialist lenses in my kit if I can avoid it. The rokinon 14mm f2.8 for example, while an excellent value proposition, is only good for astro IMO. It's manual focus, doesn't take filters, easy to damage the front element, not weather sealed, and its very bulky. You'll never carry it in your kit which means you have to go out of your way to bring it to shoot astro. If, for example, you want to hike to a location, it's and extra bulky lens to carry.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2016)

j-nord said:


> I'm one who does not want niche/specialist lenses in my kit if I can avoid it. The rokinon 14mm f2.8 for example, while an excellent value proposition, is only good for astro IMO. It's manual focus, doesn't take filters, easy to damage the front element, not weather sealed, and its very bulky. You'll never carry it in your kit which means you have to go out of your way to bring it to shoot astro. If, for example, you want to hike to a location, it's and extra bulky lens to carry.



Personally, I don't mind niche lenses. The 600/4 II can be considered one, as can the MP-E 65 and the TS-E lenses – and I have them, and bring them as needed. Basically, the 24-70/2.8 is always in the kit, and other lenses are added depending on what I'll be shooting. I have the Roki 14/2.8 which I bought for astro, but of course it can be used for other subjects if it happens to be in the bag (although now that I have the 11-24/4L, the Roki will be pretty much only for astro).


----------



## j-nord (Oct 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > I'm one who does not want niche/specialist lenses in my kit if I can avoid it. The rokinon 14mm f2.8 for example, while an excellent value proposition, is only good for astro IMO. It's manual focus, doesn't take filters, easy to damage the front element, not weather sealed, and its very bulky. You'll never carry it in your kit which means you have to go out of your way to bring it to shoot astro. If, for example, you want to hike to a location, it's and extra bulky lens to carry.
> ...


Let me clarify, I have no problem with niche lenses if money for camera gear was unlimited  Also, I consider the rokinon 14mm f2.8 even more of a niche lens than any lenses you mentioned. Middle of the night shooting is, for me, pretty rare.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Middle of the night shooting is, for me, pretty rare.



True...but the corollary of that is you generally know you're going out to do it and thus you plan in advance. So the argument about needing to go out of your way to bring it is less relevant since astrophotography generally isn't something you spontaneuosly decide to do...and when you do, you pretty much just need that one lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Middle of the night shooting is, for me, pretty rare.
> ...



+1. It was refreshing that my first try at astro (at Bryce Canyon a couple weeks ago) was such a refreshingly skinny kit to manage. No Lee Holder/ND/ND grad filter lunchbox. No pre-ND framing and post-ND timer work needed. No bag full of lenses. I just had a camping headlight, my cell phone (for the milky way locator), camera with one lens + L-plate + tripod + sandbag shutter release. It was a very mobile setup.

Now, _with the actual photography_ I completely s--- the bed for astro rookie/experience/technical/composition reasons, but it was a delightfully back-pain / widget-free experience. Highly recommended. 

- A


----------



## j-nord (Oct 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Middle of the night shooting is, for me, pretty rare.
> ...



I'm as likely to have astro shooting opportunities when traveling, on a road trip, or returning from a day trip/hike as I am to specifically pop out to shoot astro. Still waiting on more reviews and comparisons but between the vignetting/cost of the 16-35iii, I'm leaning towards the 16-35 f4 + roki 14 f2.8 as better cost/benefit for now.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 21, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



You couldn't see it with the naked eye in Bryce?


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 21, 2016)

j-nord said:


> You couldn't see it with the naked eye?



Yes, but it was faint. We went out way too soon in the evening and we also had moonlight to fight with on the more pronounced milky way side in the FOV, so I ended up shooting opposite the moon and brightest parts of the Milky Way and just getting the distant tail of the Milky Way over the main canyon view.

Again: This is the first night I ever tried astro, and I didn't have an astro-veteran wingman with me for settings, composition, etc. (I later read at Lonely Speck that I should have been gunning for -7 EV and I laughed out loud at how horribly I pooched my first night out.)

Given that I live in one of the most light polluted parts of America, and given how exacting and punishing this form of photography is, I doubt I'll get hooked with it. This will be a twice a year thing I'll do on road trips, camping, etc. and I will continue to post my sad misadventures to this talented collection of photographers. 

- A


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 22, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > You couldn't see it with the naked eye?
> ...



Nice, crisp star points, though. That's nice.


----------



## rrcphoto (Oct 23, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > coma and wide open sharpness is the main thing - but with so many cheap and great primes for this .. see samyang .. why the hell does every lens have to service this niche anyways?
> ...



It's certainly growing because it's more easy to do.

Except a manual focus lens will always be better for night-landscapes. less complex lens / non electronic for dew and environment is also better.

If you are dabbler, the vignetting isn't a problem - it isn't anyways for astro work. Where it's a problem is high DR low ISO scenes where you need to boost detail in the corners.

I refuse to call this astrophotography though, simply because slapping a f2.8 lens on and doing a 500 rule exposure certainly isn't anywhere near as challenging as even medium focal range to deep sky astrophotography.

if you're not a dabbler, you most likely have flat frames for your lens anyways, which is harder for a zoom than it is for a prime.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 23, 2016)

Woody said:


> Shocking that this lens is actually sharper than the 16-35 f/4L IS, both wide-open.


It may be sharper but only by small margin. It will find some shooters that require speed in low light conditions but for most photographers and videographers using wide angle lenses, the 16-35mm f/4L IS is more than adequate.


----------



## photojoern.de (Oct 23, 2016)

> It may be sharper but only by small margin. It will find some shooters that require speed in low light conditions but for most photographers and videographers using wide angle lenses, the 16-35mm f/4L IS is more than adequate.


 Using the 16-35 f4 IS L for a year now, I can only underline that. It´s crisp sharp up until the corners. Par level with the famous 24-70 L f2.8 II, in my opinion. And I love the fact that I can handled shot until 1/10th of a second, if not slower.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Oct 23, 2016)

photojoern.de said:


> > It may be sharper but only by small margin. It will find some shooters that require speed in low light conditions but for most photographers and videographers using wide angle lenses, the 16-35mm f/4L IS is more than adequate.
> 
> 
> Using the 16-35 f4 IS L for a year now, I can only underline that. It´s crisp sharp up until the corners. Par level with the famous 24-70 L f2.8 II, in my opinion. And I love the fact that I can handled shot until 1/10th of a second, if not slower.



Only if your subject is not moving...otherwise f2.8 is better. I wrapped up a shoot last night with the 16-35 III and its pretty amazing. After sunset, f2.8 was really helpful. Kept me from using a higher ISO which would have only degraded the overall quality of the image.

Not everyone needs to shoot in low light though so the expense may not be warranted.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 31, 2016)

East Wind Photography said:


> photojoern.de said:
> 
> 
> > > It may be sharper but only by small margin. It will find some shooters that require speed in low light conditions but for most photographers and videographers using wide angle lenses, the 16-35mm f/4L IS is more than adequate.
> ...



+1


----------



## LordofTackle (Nov 11, 2016)

By chance I had a short opportunity today to play around with the new 15-35 III.

What I noticed to far:
- build quality is excellent, feels almost the same as my 24-70 II (also looks the same). Therefore I have no problem with the increased weight
- picture quality seems very good, especially in the corners
- vignetting is pretty obvious and strong but not the 4 stops that TDP shows (at least from looking on the photos, no scientific comparison). I can definitely live with it.

Just my 2c
Sebastian


----------

