16-35 L not so sharp as 28-105

George Adam · Feb 4, 2002

I just did a comparison shot between my brand new 16-35 L lens and my 'old' 28-105 (non-l) lens with both set at f5.6. The 28-105 gave a recognisably sharper picture. I removed teh UV filter from the L and the non-L was recognisably sharper.

Is this what I should expect? If not has any body got any ideas?--Kind Regards

George Adam

Tom Conte · Feb 4, 2002

According to the MTF charts on the Canon site, the 28-105 at 28 is just about the same as the 16-35 at 35, although the 16-35 is sharper all the way to the edge of the image (which doesn't matter for the D30):

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ef_16-35_28/ef_16-35_28mtf.html
http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ef_28-105_35/ef_28-105_35mtf.html

Tom

George Adam said:
I just did a comparison shot between my brand new 16-35 L lens and
my 'old' 28-105 (non-l) lens with both set at f5.6. The 28-105
gave a recognisably sharper picture. I removed teh UV filter from
the L and the non-L was recognisably sharper.

Is this what I should expect? If not has any body got any ideas?
--
Kind Regards

George Adam

Doug Walker · Feb 4, 2002

How about posting some samples at the same aperture and same focal length tripod mounted?

George Adam said:
I just did a comparison shot between my brand new 16-35 L lens and
my 'old' 28-105 (non-l) lens with both set at f5.6. The 28-105
gave a recognisably sharper picture. I removed teh UV filter from
the L and the non-L was recognisably sharper.

Is this what I should expect? If not has any body got any ideas?
--
Kind Regards

George Adam

George Adam · Feb 4, 2002

Tom,

thanks for the quick response. I think this means that either my 28-105 is a good one or my 16-35 is a bad one as the 28-105 is noticably sharper (I did the comparison at 35mm for both of them by the way).

What prompted me to do a more detailed check was that it looked (to me at least) as though all the pictures I have taken are very slightly soft or out of focus.

Has anybody else got a direct comparison?

George

Tom Conte said:
http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ef_16-35_28/ef_16-35_28mtf.html
http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ef_28-105_35/ef_28-105_35mtf.html

Tom

George Adam said:

I just did a comparison shot between my brand new 16-35 L lens and
my 'old' 28-105 (non-l) lens with both set at f5.6. The 28-105
gave a recognisably sharper picture. I removed teh UV filter from
the L and the non-L was recognisably sharper.

Is this what I should expect? If not has any body got any ideas?
--
Kind Regards

George Adam

Click to expand...

--Kind RegardsGeorge Adam

George Adam · Feb 4, 2002

Doug Walker said:
George Adam said:

I just did a comparison shot between my brand new 16-35 L lens and
my 'old' 28-105 (non-l) lens with both set at f5.6. The 28-105
gave a recognisably sharper picture. I removed teh UV filter from
the L and the non-L was recognisably sharper.

Is this what I should expect? If not has any body got any ideas?
--
Kind Regards

George Adam

Click to expand...

Doug,

good idea. Unfortunately I have not yet learnt how to post an image! Hopefully I will master it in a day or so, after all this is urgent.

--Kind RegardsGeorge Adam

Darius · Feb 4, 2002

Hey George,
Why are you comparing two different lenses?
It is like comparing magnum with 9mm.
Thanks Darius.

George Adam said:
Doug Walker said:

George Adam said:

I just did a comparison shot between my brand new 16-35 L lens and
my 'old' 28-105 (non-l) lens with both set at f5.6. The 28-105
gave a recognisably sharper picture. I removed teh UV filter from
the L and the non-L was recognisably sharper.

Is this what I should expect? If not has any body got any ideas?
--
Kind Regards

George Adam

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Doug,

good idea. Unfortunately I have not yet learnt how to post an
image! Hopefully I will master it in a day or so, after all this
is urgent.

--
Kind Regards

George Adam

Jeff Morris · Feb 4, 2002

I paid $1,500 for my 16-35L. The results are a little soft out of the camera but sharpen up wery well with one click of the sharpen button on PS.

It is natural to compare lenses. The 16-35L is very exspensive and people always look for "Bang for the Buck". If I just bought this lens and found a cheaper lens in my bag outperforming it I would be bummed. After all thats why we buy "L" glass, for the improved performance!

I think the 16-35L shines when you look at the entire performance of the lens. From 16-35mm at al f stops.

I like this lens. If I did not, I would of returned it to B&H.--Jeff MorrisAdams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.

George Adam · Feb 4, 2002

Darius,

I have just spent $1500 odd on a lens that is not as sharp as my existing 'cheap' lens. The reason I bought the 'L' was to photograph some fantastic buildings that we have here in Penang, Malaysia (The streets are narrow so I can't get them all in at 28mm). I do think that the 'L' should be as sharp as the non-L at least. The pictures do look slightly blurred to the naked eye, so I am a bit concenred.

Darius said:
George Adam said:

Doug Walker said:

George Adam said:

I just did a comparison shot between my brand new 16-35 L lens and
my 'old' 28-105 (non-l) lens with both set at f5.6. The 28-105
gave a recognisably sharper picture. I removed teh UV filter from
the L and the non-L was recognisably sharper.

Is this what I should expect? If not has any body got any ideas?
--
Kind Regards

George Adam

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Doug,

good idea. Unfortunately I have not yet learnt how to post an
image! Hopefully I will master it in a day or so, after all this
is urgent.

--
Kind Regards

George Adam

Click to expand...

--Kind RegardsGeorge Adam

steve king · Feb 4, 2002

I keep seeing posts about how this or that L spec lens isn't absolute in the sharpness respect. I am sure even te bad ones are pretty good.
I find the greatest difference is in the punch, colours and contrast returned.
I have just received my 16-35L bought to replace a 6 month old Sigma 17-35 WA.

I have only had a few good images from the sigma but any captured image is with the new lens just seems to have so much more ..well life about the images.

Of course like you say you could have one of the really good 28-135 's and a bummer WA. --Steve Kingwww.imageking.co.uk

Louis Choi · Feb 4, 2002

The 16-35 L should be a sharp lens, though in my private little test it was not as sharp as the 28-70 L.

The photodo rating of the 20mm/2.8 is 3.4 and is very close to the 16-35 in terms of sharpness. And the 28-70 L is rated at 3.9. From the pictures I've taken with these three lenses I believe the 16-35 L is somewhere in between at approx 3.4-3.6.

That means the 16-35 L should be sharper than the 28-105 which is rated at 3.2. If your 16-35 is not as sharp as the 28-105 then you may got a bad one.

Here is one sample of the 16-35 L :

http://www.pbase.com/image/906563/large
(Routine sharpening applied)

Hope this helps.

Louis

George Adam said:
I just did a comparison shot between my brand new 16-35 L lens and
my 'old' 28-105 (non-l) lens with both set at f5.6. The 28-105
gave a recognisably sharper picture. I removed teh UV filter from
the L and the non-L was recognisably sharper.

Is this what I should expect? If not has any body got any ideas?
--
Kind Regards

George Adam

George Adam · Feb 4, 2002

Doug Walker said:
George Adam said:

I just did a comparison shot between my brand new 16-35 L lens and
my 'old' 28-105 (non-l) lens with both set at f5.6. The 28-105
gave a recognisably sharper picture. I removed teh UV filter from
the L and the non-L was recognisably sharper.

Is this what I should expect? If not has any body got any ideas?
--
Kind Regards

George Adam

Click to expand...

Doug,

I photgraphed the works calendar, which is up on the kitchen wall. I used the same aperture and f stop and the same focal length (The non-L lens had a UV filter on and the L did not (the L was even less clear with teh UV on). The Red on Green text is less sharp and the black on white is also less sharp. These are cropped from the top left of the original image.

What do you think?

http://www.pbase.com/image/1083490
http://www.pbase.com/image/1083522

--Kind RegardsGeorge Adam

George Adam · Feb 4, 2002

Louis,

thanks for the reply. I love your picture. As a result I have been inspired to post two of mine (with no post processing) one taken with teh L lens and one without. Whiel not strictly comparable (different exposures and focal lengths) it shows what led me to start to investigate my new lens. The lettering for Nonya is rather fuzzy with teh L lens and better with teh non-l IMHO.

http://www.pbase.com/vonstahlein/d30_&browse=Y

Louis Choi said:
The photodo rating of the 20mm/2.8 is 3.4 and is very close to the
16-35 in terms of sharpness. And the 28-70 L is rated at 3.9. From
the pictures I've taken with these three lenses I believe the 16-35
L is somewhere in between at approx 3.4-3.6.

That means the 16-35 L should be sharper than the 28-105 which is
rated at 3.2. If your 16-35 is not as sharp as the 28-105 then you
may got a bad one.

Here is one sample of the 16-35 L :

http://www.pbase.com/image/906563/large
(Routine sharpening applied)

Hope this helps.

Louis

George Adam said:

I just did a comparison shot between my brand new 16-35 L lens and
my 'old' 28-105 (non-l) lens with both set at f5.6. The 28-105
gave a recognisably sharper picture. I removed teh UV filter from
the L and the non-L was recognisably sharper.

Is this what I should expect? If not has any body got any ideas?
--
Kind Regards

George Adam

Click to expand...

--Kind RegardsGeorge Adam

Bill too26877 · Feb 4, 2002

In general post your pictures on some site (many use http://www.pbase.com ) then while viewing the image (NOT the thumbnail) from pbase (or wherever) right click and choose "properties" which will pop up the image details including its url. Copy and paste that URL in your posting on the forum AND.... be sure to click on the "PREVIEW" button first. That way you will get to see your message AND your image as it will appear on the forum. That

prevents the embarrassment of posting a message with no image due to a mistake. You can practise doing this also as you can cancel any message before hitting the "post" button.

Hope this helps.

billtoo

George Adam said:
good idea. Unfortunately I have not yet learnt how to post an
image! Hopefully I will master it in a day or so, after all this
is urgent.

--
Kind Regards

George Adam

--bill too

Greg M · Feb 4, 2002

Louis Choi said:
The 16-35 L should be a sharp lens, though in my private little
test it was not as sharp as the 28-70 L.

The photodo rating of the 20mm/2.8 is 3.4 and is very close to the
16-35 in terms of sharpness. And the 28-70 L is rated at 3.9. From
the pictures I've taken with these three lenses I believe the 16-35
L is somewhere in between at approx 3.4-3.6.

That means the 16-35 L should be sharper than the 28-105 which is
rated at 3.2. If your 16-35 is not as sharp as the 28-105 then you
may got a bad one.

Here is one sample of the 16-35 L :

http://www.pbase.com/image/906563/large
(Routine sharpening applied)

Hope this helps.

Louis

I had a 16-35L for about a week and sent it back because I spent toooo much money on a soft lens. I got the Sigma 20 1.8 EX DG and I am very happy with it, thanks Lee. My pics didn't look anything like the one you have posted. I probally had a bad one but I'd rather use primes lower than 28mm or 24mm because they are sharper and I can get several primes for the price of that L.

As a matter of fact, I'm only using L lenses over 70mm because for my shooting thats the only range where I can see a difference between L and non L. I'm happy with that because it also saves me alot of money. Of coarse that will change if I start shooting in low light where I can't use a flash. The savings that I'm getting has allowed me to get the 100-400L IS next week!

jcwphoto · Feb 4, 2002

I agree that a $1500 lens better be sharp. But comparing the 16-35L to the 28-105 doesn't make too much sense.

DavidP made a post to this effect: at 16mm, which lens is going to be sharper, the 16-35L or the 28-105? The wide angle zoom is going to suffer a bit in sharpness, since 1) it's a wide angle lens and 2) it's a zoom lens.

This isn't in any way a criticism of your question, just a reminder that to get the wide angle zoom, you sometimes have to make minor sacrifices. Of course, the lens has to perform within reason, considering it's a $1500 lens. But you might get more sensible comparisons if you compared it to other wide angle zooms, like the 17-35L, or the Sigma 17-35 or 15-30 (or was that 35?).

Just my thoughts.--jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net

Doug Walker · Feb 4, 2002

George,

Can you post the EXIF info for each shot? The shot with the 16-35 actually looks like its out of focus.

George Adam · Feb 5, 2002

Doug Walker said:
George,

Can you post the EXIF info for each shot? The shot with the 16-35
actually looks like its out of focus.

Doug,

thanks for your response. I appreciate some help on this. I should have said that both shots were tripod mounted. I guess an EXIF is the attributes data. Here it is for the 'L' shot:

Camera Model Name Canon EOS D30
Shooting Date/Time 2/4/02 9:30:51 PM
Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE
Tv (Shutter Speed) 1/4
Av (Aperture Value) 5.6
Metering Mode Partial
Exposure Compensation 0
ISO Speed 100
Lens 16.0 - 35.0 mm
Focal Length 35.0 mm
Image Size 2160 x 1440
Image Quality Fine
Flash Off
White Balance Day Light
AF Mode One-Shot AF
Focusing Point

Parameters
Contrast Normal
Sharpness Normal
Color Saturation Normal
File Size 1146 KB
Serial Number 103-0326
Custom function Settings
01: Long exposure noise reduction
1: On
02: Shutter button/AE lock button
0: AF/AE lock
03: Mirror lockup
0: Disable
04: TV, AV and exposure level
1: 1/3-stop
05: AF-assist light
0: On (auto)
06: Shutter speed in Av mode
1: 1/200 (fixed)
07: AEB sequence/auto cancellation
0: 0 => - => + Enabled
08: Shutter curtain sync
0: 1st-curtain sync
09: Lens AF stop button Fn. switch
0: AF stop
10: Auto reduction of fill flash
1: Disable
11: Menu button return position
2: Previous
12: SET button func. when shooting
2: Change ISO speed
13: Sensor cleaning
0: Disable
Drive Mode Self-Timer Operation
Macro Off
Owner's Name George J. S. Adam
Camera body No. 123502640

NON-L Lens (28-105)

Camera Model Name Canon EOS D30
Shooting Date/Time 2/4/02 9:22:23 PM
Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE
Tv (Shutter Speed) 1/4
Av (Aperture Value) 5.6
Metering Mode Partial
Exposure Compensation 0
ISO Speed 100
Lens 28.0 - 105.0 mm
Focal Length 35.0 mm
Image Size 2160 x 1440
Image Quality Fine
Flash Off
White Balance Day Light
AF Mode One-Shot AF
Focusing Point

Parameters
Contrast Normal
Sharpness Normal
Color Saturation Normal
File Size 1314 KB
Serial Number 103-0324
Custom function Settings
01: Long exposure noise reduction
1: On
02: Shutter button/AE lock button
0: AF/AE lock
03: Mirror lockup
0: Disable
04: TV, AV and exposure level
1: 1/3-stop
05: AF-assist light
0: On (auto)
06: Shutter speed in Av mode
1: 1/200 (fixed)
07: AEB sequence/auto cancellation
0: 0 => - => + Enabled
08: Shutter curtain sync
0: 1st-curtain sync
09: Lens AF stop button Fn. switch
0: AF stop
10: Auto reduction of fill flash
1: Disable
11: Menu button return position
2: Previous
12: SET button func. when shooting
2: Change ISO speed
13: Sensor cleaning
0: Disable
Drive Mode Self-Timer Operation
Macro Off
Owner's Name George J. S. Adam
Camera body No. 123502640

I have actually printed out both shots on my Epson 870. The picture with the 28-105 is very sharp ans that with the 16-35 L is noticably less so. I am returning the lens to the dealer tomorrow with the pictures. I hope that as the lens has never been OK (I have only had it 8 days and taken 20 odd pictures), Canon will replace it rather than 'repair' it.
--Kind RegardsGeorge Adam

George Adam · Feb 5, 2002

Bill,

thanks for your support. I was so fired up this morning (5 am here in Malaysia) that I signed up with Pbase! To show that I have learnt fom you:

http://www.pbase.com/image/1083716

This is a photo taken with the offending lens. I have a similar picture with the 28-105, much sharper.

But better still enjoy Libby at her wedding:

http://www.pbase.com/image/1087161

(nb NOT a pornographic image!).

Bill too said:
Hope this helps.

billtoo

Bill too26877 said:

good idea. Unfortunately I have not yet learnt how to post an
image! Hopefully I will master it in a day or so, after all this
is urgent.

--
Kind Regards

George Adam

Click to expand...

--
bill too

--Kind RegardsGeorge Adam

Darius · Feb 5, 2002

AGGGRRREEEEDDD finaly

Jason Wu said:
I agree that a $1500 lens better be sharp. But comparing the
16-35L to the 28-105 doesn't make too much sense.

DavidP made a post to this effect: at 16mm, which lens is going to
be sharper, the 16-35L or the 28-105? The wide angle zoom is going
to suffer a bit in sharpness, since 1) it's a wide angle lens and
2) it's a zoom lens.

This isn't in any way a criticism of your question, just a reminder
that to get the wide angle zoom, you sometimes have to make minor
sacrifices. Of course, the lens has to perform within reason,
considering it's a $1500 lens. But you might get more sensible
comparisons if you compared it to other wide angle zooms, like the
17-35L, or the Sigma 17-35 or 15-30 (or was that 35?).

Just my thoughts.
--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net

Bill too26877 · Feb 5, 2002

Well you got half of the lesson George. I think this is what you wanted to do only next time reduce the size of your images before posting them on pbase so they fit on everyone's monitor.

billtoo

George Adam said:
thanks for your support. I was so fired up this morning (5 am here
in Malaysia) that I signed up with Pbase! To show that I have
learnt fom you:

http://www.pbase.com/image/1083716

This is a photo taken with the offending lens. I have a similar
picture with the 28-105, much sharper.

But better still enjoy Libby at her wedding:

http://www.pbase.com/image/1087161

(nb NOT a pornographic image!).

Bill too said:

Hope this helps.

billtoo

George Adam said:

good idea. Unfortunately I have not yet learnt how to post an
image! Hopefully I will master it in a day or so, after all this
is urgent.

--
Kind Regards

George Adam

Click to expand...

--
bill too

Click to expand...

--
Kind Regards

George Adam

--bill too

16-35 L not so sharp as 28-105

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Darius

Guest

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Darius

Guest

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts