Msorougi 0 Posted May 23, 2020 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 150 Posted May 24, 2020 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 May 25, 2020 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 150 Posted May 27, 2020 (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 May 27, 2020 by ChrisRoss Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Msorougi 0 Posted June 1, 2020 I am on full frame (canon 5D Mark IV), with an 8 inch dome port (I think that is ~ 200 mm). And looking at ebay, I can sell the 17-40 for $350-400, and get the 16-35 used for f/4 for $700-750. Interesting thing, 16-35 f/2.8 Mark II is about the same price ($700-$800). I will probably sit on this for a bit, I have no immediate need, and there is no shockingly wide difference in image quality that warrants doling out the money yet. Thanks @ChrisRoss Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
