EF 16-35 mm f4.0 isn't sharp

I've seen lots of videos and sample photos and after a long period of deliberation decided to spend my money on an EF 16-35 mm 4.0. This is a wide-angle zoom that is supposed to render great image detail and corner-to-corner sharpness. I was very happy to receive my lens and went on a photo hunt soon after. The photos looked alright on the viewing screen of my camera (a 5D Mk II), but on the computer the sharpness looked off, very much less than the results of my 50 mm 1.8 II for example (which is 10 times cheaper).

I've gone to a renowned Canon selling point to have the lens tested, but the specialist there said he couldn't find anything wrong with the lens; he didn't check it on a computer screen though.

I have tried calibration on my camera, but there is no definite outcome of these attempts to 'fix' the problem. I wonder if any of you who own this lens or have worked with it have experience similar issues. Thanks for your thoughts.

That guy softens up a bit at the corners on FF cameras. That was my experience, but I just borrowed one, and it was crisper than my 16-35/2.8 II (so pretty much par for the course in my mind). My understanding is that the current king of UWA zoom corner crispness is the 16-35/2.8 III (which I've not used).

MFA on your 5D2 likely won't make that much of a difference - not for this lens at least - but it's a way to check things off the list. The bottom line is that if you aren't happy with the IQ, you should send it back to Canon (preferably along with the camera) and let them see if they can't sweeten up the combo. You might be surprised at the results.

.

Back in 2011 I owned a Canon 5D that needed repair (I forget exactly what for). When it was returned, it was working again, but the focus seemed fuzzier than before the camera body needed repair. To test the camera/lens combination, I auto-focused on the bottle target in the attached image, using a 24-104mm L lens, set at 80mm and f:4.0. Looking at the ruler that the bottle was set on, it was clear that the focus was short by about an inch when the bottle was placed 20 inches in front of the lens. So, back it went to the repair shop with the photo as proof. They finally repaired the body properly when they got it the second time.

I suggest that you try a similar test before sending camera/lens to Canon to see if you have a focusing problem. Test the lens wide-open, at 35mm focal length, and as close to the camera as possible for minimum depth-of-field.

[ATTACH=full]1255884[/ATTACH] .

Back in 2011 I owned a Canon 5D that needed repair (I forget exactly what for). When it was returned, it was working again, but the focus seemed fuzzier than before the camera body needed repair. To test the camera/lens combination, I auto-focused on the bottle target in the attached image, using a 24-104mm L lens, set at 80mm and f:4.0. Looking at the ruler that the bottle was set on, it was clear that the focus was short by about an inch when the bottle was placed 20 inches in front of the lens. So, back it went to the repair shop with the photo as proof. They finally repaired the body properly when they got it the second time.

 

I suggest that you try a similar test before sending camera/lens to Canon to see if you have a focusing problem. Test the lens wide-open, at 35mm focal length, and as close to the camera as possible for minimum depth-of-field.

Hi Glenn,

thanks for your reply. I have done a round of calibration settings to see if the lens maybe was back- or front focusing. This doesn't seem to be the case, but your test method is better than what I did (putting a contrasty picture with lines and letters on a wall and photographing it with different calibration settings), so maybe I'll do another test your way before I send the lens (with or without the camera) to Canon. Thanks again for your help.

That guy softens up a bit at the corners on FF cameras. That was my experience, but I just borrowed one, and it was crisper than my 16-35/2.8 II (so pretty much par for the course in my mind). My understanding is that the current king of UWA zoom corner crispness is the 16-35/2.8 III (which I've not used).

 

 

MFA on your 5D2 likely won't make that much of a difference - not for this lens at least - but it's a way to check things off the list. The bottom line is that if you aren't happy with the IQ, you should send it back to Canon (preferably along with the camera) and let them see if they can't sweeten up the combo. You might be surprised at the results.

That guy softens up a bit at the corners on FF cameras. That was my experience, but I just borrowed one, and it was crisper than my 16-35/2.8 II (so pretty much par for the course in my mind). My understanding is that the current king of UWA zoom corner crispness is the 16-35/2.8 III (which I've not used).

 

Hi Marcus, thanks for your reply. I think I will send the combination to Canon, but their repair center in my country has a really bad reputation (for things as not fixing anything and claiming the customer probably did something wrong).