Question/issue between the 16–35mm f2.8L ii vs iii

[deemo119]

Hello!  I’m searching everywhere to find an answer to something I’m noticing on my new EF 16–35mm f2.8L USM iii.  My question is:  Have you found the newer 16-35 iii is slightly darker and has a slightly narrower field of view than the older version ii?  Or is it just my particular lens? 

I’m looking for someone who has direct and substantial experience with both the ii and iii versions. Here's more info and context:

I’ve shot my 16-35 2.8 ii for many years, mostly at weddings for close-quarters dance floor party shots, but also occasionally for big wedding party creatives & big vista creative shots.  As most people know, it’s reasonably sharp in the middle but has soft spots outside of that; mine in particular has a really soft area on the right side.

So hearing that the iii has made substantial sharpness improvements, I purchased a new one.  And I noticed it didn’t quite look/feel the same, so I ran some tests.

I mounted a body (5Diii) on a tripod and took various test shots with each lens (without any filters or changing any settings).  In every test-shot set that I took, the new 16-35 iii had a slightly narrower field-of-view at 16mm than my older ii (i.e., you could not see as much around the outside edges of the images, as if it was zoomed in just slightly).  And the iii images were also darker.  [Note, I was also careful in some of the sets to be in manual focus and focused to infinity on both lenses, since changing focus can slightly change the FOV.]  In Lightroom, toggling back and forth between 2 images in each set it’s clear that the field of view is slightly narrower and the histogram is darker on the shots from the new iii.

I sent both lenses to the Canon Service Center (CPS member) with my findings and test prints, hoping I had a defective lens that I could have repaired or replaced under warranty.  But I was told that “under inspection it was found that your product performed accordingly.” And “due to the differences in shooting parameters, adjustment can be made in the camera setting to compensate the image exposure” (not sure what adjustments they're referring to?!)

So I’m wondering if it’s just my particular lens or if ALL iii’s are slightly darker and narrower FOV than the ii.  And I’m faced with the choice of either: (1) returning the iii to Adorama for a new one, hoping the replacement is “better” but knowing it could just be how all iii’s perform, (2) keeping my iii and living with it, or (3) returning the iii and just going back to using my old ii.  I’ve actually never been bothered by the softness around the edges of the ii for reception/dancing shots, I more notice it for the occasional big vista/wedding party shots.

Obviously I like that the iii is sharper.  But it’s also bigger, heavier, and worst of all possibly darker & narrower FOV (either just mine, or all of them).  Since I use this lens so much for reception dancing (close proximity to subjects and in dark environments) it’s crucial that it’s as wide and bright as possible.

UPDATE:  I just got the following specs from the Service Center:

Max Magnification(at 35mm):

ii: 0.22x

iii: 0.25x

Field of view:

ii: 231 x 358 – 109 x 162mm

iii: 196 x 295 – 96 x 143mm

So there are in fact some obvious differences between the ii and iii, with the iii having more magnification and smaller FOV numbers.  Seems obvious but I’m guessing this could explain the field of view difference that I’m seeing, and would possibly indicate, I think, that what I’m seeing in the images is for ALL iii’s, not just mine.  …correct?

But would this also affect the issue of the images being slightly darker (for example, would the slightly smaller field of view = less light getting in…??)

[Mitsubishiman]

• I have both lenses, I did notice the slightly darker aspect, I just compensate for it, as far as the difference in FOV... I mainly shoot landscape so it is not much of concern and cannot say I noticed your situation, my reason for the upgrade was the version 2 is notorious for the softness around the edges, and has a serious vignetting issue which becomes extremely apparent with any filter, dispite opinions on filters I utilize a CP frequently, and also ND, version 3 does not vignette. Curious why you chose 16-35 VS 24-70 for your preferred subject photos.

[deemo119]

Hey thanks for your feedback.  Good to know (I guess) that someone else is noticing the slightly darker issue.

To answer your question, I mainly shoot weddings, and use a 24-105 and 70-200 for the vast majority of my shots.  But sometimes I need to use the 16-35 if I'm: (a) in a small tight room with the bride getting ready, like a cramped hotel room, (b) getting creative shots of a huge wedding party and/or scenic vista shots with wedding party or brides & grooms, and (c) on a packed tight-quarters dance floor, very close to my subjects but still want to get their whole body head-to-toe as they rock out the dance moves!  In all of those cases, especially the tight rooms & dance floors, 24mm isn't wide enough. 

Anyway, I'm glad Canon improved the sharpness issue for their 16-35, but I'm iritated at the numerous down-side trade-offs (that it's bigger, heavier, slightly darker, and slightly narrower in field-of-view).  So I'm left with the personal decision of whether it's worth those trade-offs, and $1750(!), for a sharper lens... or if I should return it, keep my money, and live with my old ii.... hmmmm....

[ebiggs1]

Man you must have some really tight shootings conditions if 24mm isn't wide enough on a FF camera! If you aren't using a FF camera, spend the money on one, not a new lens. 

FL impacts distortion indirectly, because a wider lens requires you to get closer to your subject (tight room!) to keep the same framing on your subject.  The changed distance is what causes such distortion issues. Maybe this is what you are noticing.

[deemo119]

@ebiggs1:  Yes, I have all FF cameras, and yes I have really tight shooting conditions.  On a crowded dance floor it isn't unusual for me to be packed between dancers that are literally only a few feet apart, or in small little hotel rooms or cramped bathrooms with a bride (and/or maybe a whole gang of bridesmaids).  24mm doesn't remotely cut it in those conditions.

And I didn't say I was experiencing distortion issues.  The two issues are (1) narrower field of view, and (2) darker images.  I'm glad Canon fixed the softenss that a lot of people see in the 16-35 ii.  But I'm iritated at the trade-offs.

[ebiggs1]

 The wider angle lenses, 16-35mm, often have significant issues with field curvature and/or distortion.  This can be seen as a reduction in IQ.  Some are simply not great for large groups or being very close to your subject.  More true at “fast” apertures.  When you try to shoot a group photo at 24mm or less and you have people's faces at the edge of the frame, you're going to be distort them which may be the softness you see. Just laying out all possibilities for you.

If the problem is field curvature and/or distortion, it can't be fixed by a repair shop. Aslo, it is not uncommon for some lenses to not honor the FL printed on their outsides. 

[deemo119]

Yes I'm well aware of the distortion of that lens.  I know the 16-35ii intimately, I've been shooting countless weddings with it as a pro for over 10 years.  But again, I didn't say that was the issue.  The softness of the 16-35 ii, which many people experience with that lens, isn't necessarily at the edges where it gets really distorted, it's in spots half-way or maybe two-thirds-way out from the center, at any subject distance (even when you're not close), and as far as I know is a very well known issue with that lens.  If you read any review article about the iii they undoubtedly talk about the sharpness issues of the ii.

Thanks for your feedback but I'm really looking for people with substantial experience with both the 16-35 ii and iii, who can help me verify in a real hands-on sense what changed with these two issues.

[Mitsubishiman]

I can only speak for myself, I own the 16-35 f2.8L III, I cannot say I have experienced distortion, I only purchased the V III after enough research that it is in fact better regarding sharpness, which in my opinion it is.

I will offer a suggestion that may be of some help, on 500px when you click on an individual’s photograph and look at the Camera / Lens utilized you can click on the lens and see only photographs taken with that lens on the site, so perhaps you should look at what several others have regarding the photograph speaking for itself.

You can just paste these one at a time in the search bar, and it will show only the photographs taken with each lens, when you click on any particular photo, allow a few seconds for decompression as the site compresses stored images, takes less than 5 seconds for large size photos to come into focus, before I judge any lens, I want to see what others have experienced by what they have captured, and in this way you will.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

IMHO you have a bad lens if in fact you are seeing distortion in any other place except the extreme edges, which in my experience are removed when applying a lens correction in post processing.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Mitsubishiman wrote:

I can only speak for myself, I own the 16-35 f2.8L III, I cannot say I have experienced distortion, I only purchased the V III after enough research that it is in fact better regarding sharpness, which in my opinion it is.

I will offer a suggestion that may be of some help, on 500px when you click on an individual’s photograph and look at the Camera / Lens utilized you can click on the lens and see only photographs taken with that lens on the site, so perhaps you should look at what several others have regarding the photograph speaking for itself.

You can just paste these one at a time in the search bar, and it will show only the photographs taken with each lens, when you click on any particular photo, allow a few seconds for decompression as the site compresses stored images, takes less than 5 seconds for large size photos to come into focus, before I judge any lens, I want to see what others have experienced by what they have captured, and in this way you will.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM

IMHO you have a bad lens if in fact you are seeing distortion in any other place except the extreme edges, which in my experience are removed when applying a lens correction in post processing.

---

Compression results in loss of information, and decompression doesn't bring it back. So while I might trust that site to provide a reasonably accurate illustration of a lens's distortion (or lack thereof), I'm not sure I'd trust it to accurately depict the lens's sharpness. 

[ebiggs1]

The fact is the 16-35mm L II is the weak link in the Canon big 3 of the, f2.8L lens line up. The f4 version is just as sharp or sharper and cheaper. Also, the f2.8L II is pretty good if you don't use it at 22mm or below but who buys a lens not to use all it FL? Sorry Canon just not a fan of the 16-35mm f2.8L II.