Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II - not sharp.

kumar007 wrote:

Hi,

I switched to Canon from Nikon last summer.

I rented two lens 16-35 f2.8L (first version) and 70-200 f.28 (first version) for few days and clicked several pics. I was amazed by Canon's color and L lens's sharpness.

Since then I owned a 70-200 f2.8L II and I love it.

I just bought a 16-35 f.28 II few days ago and I notice that it isn't as sharp as 70-200 f2.8L II.

This is normal, ultra wide zoom lenses are very difficult to design, something has to give. Plus, at what focal lengths and apertures do you find the lens is not sharp? Are you pixel peeing at 100%? That is useless.

Is this how 16-35 are? Am I being spoilt by 70-200?

In general, yes, and yes.

I read on several forums that 16-35 isn't very sharp since its a wide angle lens.

As expected, it is sharp for a wide angle zoom though not at f2.8 in the corners...

If that so, why is it called 'L' lens? Why buy expensive L lens instead of less expensive third party lens?

You should read Canon's "Lens Work" book, where they explain the definition of L lens. L lens category implies more than sharpness, it implies the lens is built to withstand the daily use and abuse that professional photographers submit them to. They also feature more expensive and exotic glass, to correct for chromatic aberrations for example (fluorite). Less expensive third party lenses are not built to the same standard, and will suffer from similar, or worse, optical defects.

Shouldn't 'L' lens be the best among the best Canon lenses?

And they are, relative terms. But you need to think if you really need the benefits that they offer. Even a kit zoom like the 18-55 will give excellent results at f8...

Shouldn't L lens be the sharpest?

They normally are, but there are compromises to be made, especially with wide angle zooms...

Can someone suggest a better wide angle lens for my 6D? I am looking for a fast lens which can produce as sharp as my 70-200.

Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZE.