All are unique and excellent in their own way, and all of them are a bit more of a commitment to carry as part of a working set.
A filterable ultra-wide that pairs with a 70-200 should be the basis of a professional run and gun set-up.
Compare this lens with the 16-35/4LIS using the data and tool in the review, and it shows that the latter lens still holds the edge in resolution across the focal range when both lenses are at f/4.
On the other hand, other reviews have said the new lens wide open is as sharp as the 16-35/4LIS. Yes, it looks Canon made substantial improvement over the previous version II (which is an outstanding lens).
I have a 16 /35mm 2.8 (series 1) lens and a 16 / 35 f4 IS lens each of which I use on either a 5D3 or an 80D. Of course I would like the new version 3 lens but on crop cameras there is not much difference between version 1 and 3.
Could you at DPR please explain your reasoning behind saying f2.8 is equivalent to f4.5 on an APSC camera. Nothing else changes and "equivalent" is simply a handy guide to angles of view.
Zoom the 16-35mm lens to 35mm and shoot at f/2.8 on APS-C.
Then use a 24-70 on a full frame body and shoot from the same position...
But again, there's more to a lens than Dx OMark Sharpness Field Map measurements.https://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/Canon EOS5DSR/Result/Dak Result/Canon_EF_16_35mm_F28L_III_USM/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_16mm_f8.pnghttps://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/Canon EOS5DSR/Result/Dak Result/Canon_EF16_35mm_F28L_II_USM/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_16mm_f8.pnghttps://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/Canon EOS5DSR/Result/Dak Result/Canon_EF_16_35mm_F28L_USM/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_16mm_f8.pnghttps://cdn.dxomark.com/dakdata/measures/Sony A6000/Result/Dak Result/Sony_E_10_18mm_F4/MTF_v2/MTF_ACUTANCE_10mm_f8Thanks for this report. I love that lens, and I have no intention to spend over ,000 to upgrade because I don't think I'd get my money's worth upgrading.
Canon's L glass is very much in a league of its own. I've kept my 16 / 35 2.8 ( 1 ) and recently bought a 16 / 35 F4 IS L which is arguably "better" than the 2.8 version 3 except if you must have 2.8. I may even shed the (steep) entry fee and get one for me. but....still not sure that's the lens i'd use.
The F4 is far cheaper than the 2.8 version 3 and is a fine lens. On the other hand: who will ever use a wide-angle zoom for portrait work, studio or macro photography? I'd have come up with something different or just say that there are no cons really.that's right! it's more a matter of what a lens is intended for rather than all that you can make with it.you'd could potentially shoot sports with a macro lens, not that i'd ever recommended it or that the lens designers would have thought about it when they designed it.i think the 'cons' should be related to what the lens was originally designed for.which part of my above comment "it's more a matter of what a lens is intended for rather than all that you can make with it" wasn't clear?
That said, a fast ultra-wide zoom that takes filters is an important option that, right now, they haven't got.
The 14-24 was a game changer without answer for many years, and even today it remains a special lens that is unequaled in a few important ways.