Jaime Valles Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Hello, all. I need to get myself a wide angle zoom lens for my Canon 1DX II, and have been looking at the 16-25mm f/2.8 lenses. They just announced version III of the lens, but it's expensive at $2199: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1274708-REG/canon_ef_16_35mm_f_2_8l_iii.html There's also version II, which is significantly cheaper at $1449: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486708-USA/Canon_1910B002AA_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_II.html And finally there's the original version I which goes on Ebay for around $850: http://www.ebay.com/itm/162200877114?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT I'm sure the quality of version III is best, but how bad is version I compared to version II? And would version I work with the Dual-Pixel Auto Focus of the 1DX II? Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Mason Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Only version II and III support DPAF. Version III has significantly better optical quality than version II. Buy what you can afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Valles Posted September 20, 2016 Author Share Posted September 20, 2016 7 minutes ago, Luke Mason said: Only version II and III support DPAF. Version III has significantly better optical quality than version II. Buy what you can afford. This is really good to know. I think version III is a bit too expensive for me right now, so I'll go with II instead and forget about version I. Thanks so much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcs Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 16-35 F2.8 II works great with 1DX II, fairly silent too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew19 Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 the vII is the only lens that I own that O can see softness in canon 1080p video mode. the corners at 2.8 around 20mm suck really bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chris Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 The 16-35/4 is sharper than the previous 2.8's, IIRC its much better on the long end. And its stabilized. If you can live without the extra stop they can be found for less than $800 if you're patient. I would buy one over the new 16-35 since its also a bit lighter and the stabilization is handy when shooting video. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gt3rs Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 7 hours ago, Luke Mason said: Only version II and III support DPAF. Version III has significantly better optical quality than version II. Buy what you can afford. Why should v1 not be supported by DPAF? Can you point out where did you read it. I have lens much older than the v1 (introduced December 2000) that works perfectly fine like the 85 1.8 (July 1991) with DPAF. I have and use regularly the 16-35 II for 4k video (1.3crop) and is quite good, for photos or 1080p the corners are ok but not great, the new one seems better. It is a good point to consider also the 16-35 F4 IS, personally I would prefer to have the 24 1.4 II + 16-35 F4 than only the new 16-35 III (about the same cost). I have the 16-35 II and the 24 1.4. In Switzarland you can find many on the local ebay at around 800-900 usd, I would never pay 850 for the I version. As soon as there are III on the market the II will drop even further in price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Mason Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 7 hours ago, gt3rs said: Why should v1 not be supported by DPAF? Can you point out where did you read it. I have lens much older than the v1 (introduced December 2000) that works perfectly fine like the 85 1.8 (July 1991) with DPAF. I have and use regularly the 16-35 II for 4k video (1.3crop) and is quite good, for photos or 1080p the corners are ok but not great, the new one seems better. It is a good point to consider also the 16-35 F4 IS, personally I would prefer to have the 24 1.4 II + 16-35 F4 than only the new 16-35 III (about the same cost). I have the 16-35 II and the 24 1.4. In Switzarland you can find many on the local ebay at around 800-900 usd, I would never pay 850 for the I version. As soon as there are III on the market the II will drop even further in price. Canon has a list of DPAF compatible lenses. Your 85 1.8 is supported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gt3rs Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Thx. For reference the compatible list: https://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/images/cameras/eos/DAF/compatible_lens_chart.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkabi Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Luke Mason said: Canon has a list of DPAF compatible lenses. Your 85 1.8 is supported. From owner and operator of the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1), I can attest that it works on the 70D and the 7D mark 2. A bit noisy, but it works... its no STM or nano USM... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Mason Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 1 hour ago, mkabi said: From owner and operator of the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1), I can attest that it works on the 70D and the 7D mark 2. A bit noisy, but it works... its no STM or nano USM... It's not officially supported though: http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/eos/data/dual_pixel_cmos_af.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkabi Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Luke Mason said: It's not officially supported though: http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/eos/data/dual_pixel_cmos_af.html I dont' know what to say to that... What exactly is the DPAF supposed to do? (Rhetorical Question) And, my version 1 lens works with it to do exactly that. In fact, I think it works better than the 50mm f/1.8 II (which is shown as being supported). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.