Msorougi 0 Posted Saturday at 08:36 PM I know terra firma photographers sing the praises of the improvement of Canon 16-35 mm EF 1:2.8L USM Mark III over its predecessor, the Mark II (Which in and of itself was a great lens). But my question, given the substantial difference in cost, is there a substantial difference in quality when it comes to underwater photography? Should I save my money and go for the Mark II? Or would I regret not doling out this much extra on the Mark III? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisRoss 147 Posted Sunday at 06:54 AM Or go with the 16-35mm f4 it's sharper than the II and just short of the III and cheaper than both. When you put it behind a dome port and stop down to f11-16 a lot of that extra sharpness disappears. Compared to the f4 lens unless you need f2.8 on land it provides no advantage underwater. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Msorougi 0 Posted Monday at 06:08 PM On 5/24/2020 at 2:54 AM, ChrisRoss said: Or go with the 16-35mm f4 it's sharper than the II and just short of the III and cheaper than both. When you put it behind a dome port and stop down to f11-16 a lot of that extra sharpness disappears. Compared to the f4 lens unless you need f2.8 on land it provides no advantage underwater. So currently I have a canon 17-40, you think I should just stick with it, save the cash and go diving instead? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisRoss 147 Posted Wednesday at 07:15 AM (edited) There's going to be a improvement in sharpness between the 17-40 and 16-35 f4 but whether it's enough to lay down some cash compared to going diving only you can answer. I would think you would see some improvement, probably mainly in the corners. If you are into that sort of thing you can find lens sharpness tests online like here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=100&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3 On this site you mouse over to swap between the two lenses, or here: https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff On this site you need to compare tests done on the same camera - numerical results are quite different on different cameras. You can that at f5.6 - 8 the new lens is much better , but both are quite close by f11 where you would probably shoot on full frame. The other but is what dome do you have - to get the best in the corners of a 16/17mm lens (assuming full frame) you need a big dome, probably a 230mm dome. In the centre the lenses seem to be quite close. Edited Wednesday at 07:16 AM by ChrisRoss Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
