[Klaus]

Nice ... except for the extreme vignetting at 16mm f/2.8

http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_f...1635f28mk3

 

[davidmanze]

Looks very nice.........and expensive!

[Rover]

The vignetting is - again - nuts, it's like Leica territory or something. Overall this lens doesn't seem very practical between all the alternatives. The big question mark is whether the f/4 IS lens does fall apart at 50 MP - then, of course, the hapless 5DSR users have no other (brand name) high quality option.

 

Thankfully this new lens did not trigger the G.A.S. in my case... I know where my loyalties lie. 

[Klaus]

The 16-35mm IS has nearly identical MTFs at 21mp so ...

[Rover]

The 16-35mm IS has nearly identical MTFs at 21mp so ...

Oh, thanks for pointing it out. There's a decent chance that we can extrapolate, then.

It's not like I'm ever going to get a 5DSR anyway - it's about the last camera I'm ever going to get.

[toni-a]

I don't know why I am not at all tempted by a full frame ultrawide.

Now I understand why Tokina had to make their 16-28 big and heavy with a protruding front element.

APS-C offers you much more often needed DOF a more dramatic perspective,way cheaper prices and much lighter alternative.

3+EV vignetting is the least to say unacceptable.

[Rover]

That's what I've been saying for quite some time now: the dedicated APS-C are abundant, diverse, have good IQ (as a rule) and usually provide better across the frame sharpness. The Sigma 8-16 is also about the widest one can get (without selling a kidney AND mortgaging your house). The Canon 10-18 looks like a tiny/affordable marvel.

[Brightcolours]

I don't know why I am not at all tempted by a full frame ultrawide.

Now I understand why Tokina had to make their 16-28 big and heavy with a protruding front element.

APS-C offers you much more often needed DOF a more dramatic perspective,way cheaper prices and much lighter alternative.

3+EV vignetting is the least to say unacceptable.

Losing sight of equivalence again.

 

To get an equivalent lens on APS-C, you are talking about 10-22mm f1.75 lens. Wanna bet on how vignetting for the 10mm f1.8 end would be on on APS-C?

 

You do not get more DOF on APS-C either, when you set equivalent settings. So, APS-C does not have a DOF advantage, nor will it vignet lens at equivalent settings.

Nor will it give more dramatic perspectives.

 

Just set your EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM III to 16 mm and f13 and you get the same of less vignetting as the APS-C lens at 10mm f8, and the same DOF.

You can not set the APS-C lens to 10mm and f1.8 though, and that is where the FF lens has the advantage (when needed). 

[toni-a]

Losing sight of equivalence again.


To get an equivalent lens on APS-C, you are talking about 10-22mm f1.75 lens. Wanna bet on how vignetting for the 10mm f1.8 end would be on on APS-C?


You do not get more DOF on APS-C either, when you set equivalent settings. So, APS-C does not have a DOF advantage, nor will it vignet lens at equivalent settings.

Nor will it give more dramatic perspectives.


Just set your EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM III to 16 mm and f13 and you get the same of less vignetting as the APS-C lens at 10mm f8, and the same DOF.

You can not set the APS-C lens to 10mm and f1.8 though, and that is where the FF lens has the advantage (when needed).

Thanks for showing this equivalence I didn't think of.

However a practical approach: I have Tokina 16-28 and canon 10-18.

It is obvious which combo is lighter and 10mm f8 has more DOF than 16mm f8 since lighting is the same and angle is the same, so I prefer the crop version.

Of course if I needed shallow DOF and low light performance I would use the Tokina 16-28.

Perspective at 10mm should be different from perspective at 16mm however I didn't notice this in real life practice.

Now being more and more practical, ultrawides isn't my style and I rarely use any of them but I am too anxious to carry a bag without an ultrawide inside "in case I need it"

[Brightcolours]

Thanks for showing this equivalence I didn't think of.

However a practical approach: I have Tokina 16-28 and canon 10-18.

It is obvious which combo is lighter and 10mm f8 has more DOF than 16mm f8 since lighting is the same and angle is the same, so I prefer the crop version.

Of course if I needed shallow DOF and low light performance I would use the Tokina 16-28.

Perspective at 10mm should be different from perspective at 16mm however I didn't notice this in real life practice.

Now being more and more practical, ultrawides isn't my style and I rarely use any of them but I am too anxious to carry a bag without an ultrawide inside "in case I need it"

Lighting will the the same for 16mm f13 (FF) and 10mm f8 (APS-C) when you set APS-C to for instance ISO 200 and FF to ISO 500 or so. 

 

Why would there be a different perspective for 16mm on FF and 10mm on APS-C? There actually is no perspective difference. Same subject distance and same FOV.

 

APS-C has the price and weight advantage. FF the shallow DOF possibility advantage.