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

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.

my 16-35L II is very sharp but needs to be stopped down to f3.2.  if you are expecting to find an UW as sharp as the 70-200L or the 24-70L II you just aren't being realistic.

Mine is fairly sharp but when I do astrophotography, I do wish it were a bit sharper at f/4. For the daytime photos I can't complain. If you're not happy with it you can always sell it, get the 17-40 or the 14mm from Samyang, and wait for an updated 16-35 or a 14-28 from Canon.

First of welcome to canon

16-35II should be very sharp in the center wide open.  it certainly is not sharp in the corners wide open, but withing DOF, by 5.6, through out the focal length is very good in the entire frame.

In addition, it is very fast accurate, and silent focusing, it is weather sealed, it has a great star burst effect, it has decent flare characteristics, and it takes filters.  It is simply the best ultrawide zoom available for canon.

70-200 II IS its not, but no canon zoom lens is of that quality, maybe with the exception of 200-400.  even the much heralded 24-70II which is better than the nikon variant, is not in the same class as the 70-200 II, turning in some weak corner performances as some focal lengths.

I own and occasionally use the nikon 14-24 on my canon, but stopped down, in 20x30 inch prints, there is not dicernable difference between the two, except that the nikon is far more flare prone.  at 2.8, in terms of corner sharpness 14-24 handily beats canon, and if you are in to nightscapes/sky photography, its worth a look.  if you can live with a prime, and need 2.8 corner to corner sharpness, samyang 14 2.8 is amazing, outperforming the nikon at 14mm.

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.

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

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?

The 24-70 f2.8 II is sharp, don't take my word for it have a look here: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1494/cat/11

A while ago someone posted which camera manufacturer featured in some world photo awards, Canon was way out in front and interestingly the 16-35 f2.8 II was by far the most used lens as far as I could see as well.

All in all I like the 16-35 myself, if I'm shooting landscapes then I'm at f8, if I want the attention to be on the centre of frame then I shoot f2.8. If you use DPP the DLO works really well on the 16-35.

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.

Brandon said it very well. I'm a photojournalist and use the 16-35mm a lot, but in no way is it as sharp as the 70-200 or new 24-70 f/2.8L II. I always have to add a good chunk of sharpening in PP to make it look good. That said, it is a real workhorse of a lens and I would just LOVE it if Canon made a sharp version III.

24-70 closest if 24 is wide enough for you.  it is esp good on the wide end, at 24, it is fantastic.  However, I am usually far more interested in field of view and focal length for my composition than absolute sharpness.

Tokina 16-28 2.8 is probably the sharpest ultrawide full frame, non fisheye native canon mount lens.  Nikon 14-24 is the sharpest adaptable lens.

I'd tend to agree, but corner to corner sharpness on par with the Nikon 14-24 is completely realistic.

Actually I'm in search for a nice tokina copy of 16-28. Heard it is as good or even better than canon's 16-35. I just happened to stumble upon a bad sample with tight zoom ring, focus decentering and back-focusing.

No sharp super wide angle zoom from Canon today.

24-70 II standard zoom is sharp. 24-70 IS is sharp too.

If you want a sharp super wide angle either get the Nikon 14-24 or the Samyang 14mm ( which is a bargain of the century ).

//

he said. she said.  they said.  you can hear anything on the internet if you look hard enough

as far as I know you use the 16-35L I.  we had this discussion before.  the 16-35L I is not as sharp so your comments are misleading unless you are using the 16-35l II.

ed rader wrote:

he said. she said. they said. you can hear anything on the internet if you look hard enough

It's one of the steps and ways you can learn something. Although it's not the only way. Sounds better now?