Canon EF 16-35 USM III vs USM II

[cgennoe]

1. This question is straightforward:
   
   There is a significant difference in price between these lenses:
   
   How significant is the difference in picture quality?
   Under what circumstances does the USM III outperform the USM II and how dramatic is that difference?
   
   I supposed there may have been a similar post created already, or a good article online that I haven't been able to source online.
   
   Thanks a great deal in advance!
   

 

[beagle100]

1. This question is straightforward:
   
   There is a significant difference in price between these lenses:
   
   How significant is the difference in picture quality?
   Under what circumstances does the USM III outperform the USM II and how dramatic is that difference?
   
   I supposed there may have been a similar post created already, or a good article online that I haven't been able to source online.
   
   Thanks a great deal in advance!

you can compare lens on sites like Welcome to Photozone!

If I had the budget I'd choose the 16-35 2.8 USM III

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[bratkinson]

Simply Google each one with the word: review or reviews. Some of the reviews may have a side by side comparison of the two as well. Then, rent them both from a reputable equipment rental firm such as LensRentals.com - Rent Lenses and Cameras from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Leica, and more and try them out on your camera! They'll even give you a discount if you buy the lens you test from them (no, I am not a shill, but a very satisfied customer).

Regardless of which lens you choose, if your camera supports Micro Focus Adjustment, by all means do it! I have the 16-35 f2.8L II and after performing MFA with it on my 5D3, I can read an 8.5x11" typed document held in someones' hand at f4 @ 35mm from about 10' away! (I just checked the EXIF) Sharp enough, even at the long end? I think so.

 

[kalgra]

1. This question is straightforward:
   
   There is a significant difference in price between these lenses:
   
   How significant is the difference in picture quality?
   Under what circumstances does the USM III outperform the USM II and how dramatic is that difference?
   
   I supposed there may have been a similar post created already, or a good article online that I haven't been able to source online.
   
   Thanks a great deal in advance!

My question to you is do you really need 2.8 with this wide of a lens? If yes the III will be sharper in the corners with less chromatic aberration. If you don't really have some special need for 2.8 go with the f/4 with IS. It is VERY good and Its a $1000 cheaper than the III and $200-300 cheaper than the II.

Also keep in mind once a new version of a lens comes out Canon doesn't continue making parts for the older version for very long so getting a version II serviced/repaired will have a pretty limited lifespan at this point.

 

[kalgra]

To add to my last comment. If you trust sites like DXO mark they show that the 2.8iii is leaps and and bounds sharper than the the 2.8ii but chromatic aberration is only slightly better. However when compared to the f/4 the 2.8iii is only slightly sharper nothing you would probably ever be able to notice without some extreme pixel peeping but the f/4 is still better in the chromatic aberration area. So again unless you need the 2.8 dof I still think the f/4 is the way to go. I have found the IS offers a solid 2-3 stops of stabilization when hand holding. The 2.8iii dosnt have IS so while it has the wider aperture I'm not sure that you will get any better low light performance from the 2.8iii, at least not $1000 worth. I used my f/4 on a trip through Europe and photographed many cathedrals and churches that were very dark and no flash or tripod were allowed. I can say with ever bit of confidence that the f/4 IS version of this lens did NOT disappoint.

Another lens you may consider if 2.8 is important to you is the Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC. That lens is a touch more pricey than the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS but still cheaper than the Canon 2.8ii and way cheaper than the 2.8iii and it has image stabilization as well.

There are several comparisons on the Tamron vs the Canon 2.8iii on you tube. I particularly would go the Dustin Abbott comparison of the Tamron 15-30 vs Canon 2.8iii as well as his two reviews (especially part two) of the Canon 16-35 2.8iii for some knowledgable and real world critique.