I've used both, but the Mk.1 was what I used the longest -
An absolutely wonderful lens whose only shortcoming is poor corners
at 16mm. It makes up for that by being, even at f/2.8, very sharp in
the center
and about half-way out into the image.
Also, at 35mm even wide open mine was razor sharp. But more so, the
colour and
contrast was great. So yes, it was not a perfect lens, but in my
opinion the reports
of it performing poorly on the net was greatly exaggerated, I won't
know who the heck
pixel-peeps in the corners in anwyay - but in all other respects, a
world-class lens.
Also much smaller and lighter than a ZD 7-14 (even though it's a ZD-
equivalent 8-18
and lets through double the light on a format with 4x the sensor
area), takes filters,
instant/quiet AF, weather-sealed, etc etc. I really loved this lens.
Anyway, that was then, this is now :-) The only thing I have that goes
that wide
at the moment is on the Linhof. It did appear as if the cheapie ZD
9-18 had less
distortion than the EF 16-35mm, that much I will grant.
On 27 Mar 2009, at 11:30 AM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Canon 16-35mm f2.8 - Mk.1 or 2? :-)
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|