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

The specs on the I and II are nearly identical except for the chromatic aberration.

but it still isn't the lens the OP is asking about.

ppires85 wrote:

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.

I seem to have a good copy. No centering issues and focus is accurate. Zoom is stiff and I would prefer an AF/MF switch. And don't point it anywhere near the sun.

The flare has me thinking of switching. The 16-35 starburst is awesome.

For your new 6D I recommend to wait the release of the rumored 16-35 f4L IS. This is what I'm going to do because I really don't need 2.8 in a ultra-wide to wide zoom that I'm going to use between 16-28mm most of the time and at apertures between f8-f16 (landscape photos). Plus the 6D has excelent high ISO performance to counter the loss of one stop (2.8 vs 4) if you shoot people or other non-static subjects.

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

Another general rule of thumb is that, the longer the zoom range, eg 3x zoom, 4x zoom, 6x zoom, etc, the more compromised the optical quality.

In this situation, the very best optical quality generally comes in a single focal length prime lens, with no zoom ability at all.

For example, notice how your Canon 16-35 has 2.19x zoom range, while the Nikkor 14-24 has been deliberately compromised at only 1.71x zoom range? That narrower zoom range gives greater sharpness!

Likewise, in the smaller APS-C sensors, a Canon EF-S 10-22 2.2x zoom f3.5-4.5 is neither as sharp, nor as bright as a Tokina 11-16 1.45x zoom f2.8, however the 10-22 has a much wider zoom range than the Tokina ultra wide.

It all boils down to lens physics and compromise...

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?

Don't know about the 16-35 II. I have the earlier one, and it's not very sharp anywhere near the edges or corners wide open. It doesn't hold a candle to the 70-200. That zoom is a spoiler

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?

It is the sharpest 16-35/f2.8 Canon makes.

Btw, about the "L" class lens.

The L lens is all about being made of magnesium alloy Mg, and being dust proof and weather sealed.

L lens is not about optical quality. The smaller APS-C size EF-S and bigger FF EF but Non-L Class lens can have just as good, if not better optical quality, like the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 lens...

17mm TSE - manual focus and that front element will require a lot of care, but if all you want is sharpness...

My 16-35ii is tack sharp in centre easily as sharp as my 72isii.

i like this lens a lot but it does distort considerably and often returning to 24l etc.

for all those who disparage L lens and say not about sharpness... Sorry but all my 9 L lenses are very very sharp, have great contrast and colour....

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 ?