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

BrandonTT wrote:

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.

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

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.

No, the 16-35 2.8L II is not as sharp, but you'd be better comparing it to something of similar focal length, say the 24-70 2.8L II on the wide end. The 16-35 is a nice lens and the best ultra wide angle lens you can buy for a Canon, but as most Canon wide angle shooters will say, we're all kind of waiting on a replacement that can match corner to corner sharpness of Nikon's 14-24. Again, the 16-35 is a nice lens, it's just not an excellent lens, and I'm looking forward to a replacement that matches the 24-70 2.8L II and the 70-200 2.8L II.

Comparing a 16mm zoom lens with a lens like the 70-200 II, omg. No way, the 16-35 II is just not as sharp as other similar zooms in that price range. 17-40 and 16-35 II actually is not far from each other. If you want sharp under 20mm, you just need a prime lens, or maybe the extremly expensive and overrated nikon 12-24 ?