DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

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

Started May 6, 2014 | Discussions thread
martin_k13 Regular Member • Posts: 128
Re: Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II - not sharp.
1

kumar007 wrote:

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

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

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

Shouldn't L lens be the sharpest?

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.

When I switched to FF and from 10-22 to 16-35 II my expectations to sharpness were pretty low, but I'm surprised how good this lens is. In fact, I consider it to be a very good copy, and I think it's very sharp, even in the corners.

L does not mean "the sharpest", although some lenses have proven to be best-in-class, like the 24-70 II. It rather means "among the sharpest".

"The best" does not refer to sharpness only - it's the overall package, this includes sharpness, build quality, handling, weather sealing, color reproduction, contrast, etc. In these terms I think it's not wrong to consider L glass among the best available.

Martin

 martin_k13's gear list:martin_k13's gear list
Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow