The old (II):
The new (III):
Light green is aspherical lenses, dark green is UD glass.
What does the total redesign bring? Apparently a lot.
MTF of the old (II):
MTF of the new (III):
So about as good as the f/4 L IS according to Canon.
I am thinking about those who upgraded to 16-35 II and now they find themselves with an outdated lens.
Couldn't canon engineers get this formula from the beginning?
I know plenty of photographers who did the update and who will be updating now
The 16-35 f2.8 L USM II is from 2007, that is almost a decade ago. Lens design is constantly evolving.
So the answer to your question? "No".
The design does not look radically different though. It's an interesting fact that the 16-35/2.8 is the first L lens to go into the third iteration - kind of an admission by Canon that they didn't quite get the first redesign right somehow.
BTW, I'm a happy camper with the f/4 IS. I know many people feel the same. A 16-35/2.8 was the default choice, but... Not anymore. Instead, it has become a niche lens (and the situation isn't helped by the very high price of this new unit).
I wish Nikon redesign their 16-35 f4.
Quote:I wish Nikon redesign their 16-35 f4.
Haha... Ken Rockwell was gushing about it but both PZ and Lenstip found it lacking. Ironically enough it was the originator of the stabilized 16-35/4 lens class but has been since outdone by Sony and especially Canon. Unfortunately, for now it looks a little too new to be updated so it may take them a while.