Re: Canon 16-35mm f2.8L II , and Nikon 14-24
3
kumar007 wrote:
Thanks!
So none of the mentioned wide angle are comparable to 70-200?
So, which one of the three (16-35, 24-70 and 17-40) would be closest to 70-200 in terms of sharpness?
Unfortunately, lens physics is a compromise.
As a general rule, as focal lengths become very short, optical quality becomes compromised. Thus, the ultra wides like the 16-35 can't be as sharp as a the more standard 24-70 f2.8 II.
Likewise, as focal lengths become long, optical quality becomes compromised too. The long teles like the 70-200 f2.8 IS II isn't as sharp, in particular optically good as the standard 24-70 f2.8 II either.
Very short [nee ultra wide] focal lengths compromise optical quality more than very long focal lengths. Thus, the 16-35 cannot perform as well as a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It's just the nature of optical physics.
The easiest focal length to achieve maximum optical quality is 50 mm! Go too long, and you're in trouble. Go too wide, and you're in more trouble.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EF-24-70mm-F28L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Canon-EF70-200mm-f28L-IS-II-USM___220_795_886_795_408_0
You will notice that the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 is a little sharper than your Canon 16-35 f2.8 II, however, once again, optical physics is a big compromise, the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8 achieves greater sharpness by compromising on the range at the tele end - it will only zoom as long as 24 mm, not 35 mm like your lens.
Lens physics is all a compromise. Photography is all about compromise too.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-14-24mm-F28G-ED-on-Nikon-D800___220_795_813_792