dissapointed by Canon 16-35 2.8 L

[regina_bekker]

Hello,

 

I have 3 Canon L lenses - 16-35 2.8 , 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 . I am

very happy with 24-70 and 70-200, but dissapointed by 16-35 2.8 L. It

is very soft comparing to other two, especially wide open. Usually I

am using apperture 2.8-4.0, and the quality of 16-35 just horrible.

 

Should it be this way? Does everybody have this problem? Or it is some

famous defect in this lens?

 

Thanks

Denis

[coolmingli]

Which body did you use it on? it maybe a bad copy, I had same problems with my first 16-35, the second one looks fine, if you don't need the extra stop, 17-40 is another sharp lens.

[wingedrabbit]

How about an image for an example?

[camilla]

Perhaps something is wrong, but it could also be that your are expecting too much from a wideangle zoom. I have the 16-35, and it is definitely softer than my Tamron 28-75/2.8, my Canon 70-200/2.8, not to mention my two Canon 50mm lenses. I tried several wideangle lenses, zooms and primes, and realised they were just never (at least not yet) going to be as sharp as longer lenses. Compared to the other wideangle options, I think the 16-35 is very good, but it's not ultra-sharp like the two other lenses you own.

[david_french3]

I don't know the answer to your question, but I find qualitatively the results from my 70-200

2.8 are better than my 24-70 2.8, although most people regard the 24-70 as an excellent

lens. I presume it's down to quality control. A bit annoying, given the price.

[dogbert]

I don't know the answer to your question either as I don't own this lens, but if the quality is just horrible as you put it there is probably someting wrong. For reference, a lot of my shots in my portfolio were shot with a Sigma 12-24 EX, which is a $600 lens and much wider fov than a 16mm lens. If you 16-35 is worse than that I think you have something to complain about.

[andrew robertson]

You'll never find an ultrawide zoom as sharp as the 24-70 or 70-200 L lenses.

[photoreu]

My 16-35 is very, very sharp. In fact, sharper and contrastier than the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS I borrow from time to time. I think it's a quality control issue. I've seen 70-200's that are awesome but the one I borrow just isnt that great. My 16-35 is as sharp as my 50 in the center... but there is a noticeable decrease towards the corners.

[dave_yoder3]

Mine is pretty decent too. And I switched from Canon grudginly from Leica R so I don't say it

lightly.

[antony_bichon]

It is a fact of life that wide angle lenses, at largest aperture are soft! It's physics... try it at f/5.6 or even f/8...

Actually check this links for more info:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/14-vs-16.shtml

[picturesque]

I have a 16-35mm. In the center at f2.8, it should be sharp. In the corners, probably a little soft (especially at the wide end). That is the way super wide zooms are, but the center should be sharp--it is an L lens. If yours isn't, you should return the lens to try another copy. Also, don't shoot brick walls and the like for tests, at least not just brick walls. Use for test subjects, whatever it is you intend to photograph with the lens--landscapes, people, etc. Evaluate what the lens does with "real" subjects, not just brick walls.

 

By the way, who is Denis if you are Regina, or is it vice versa?

[dogbert]

Is it possible to shoot photos of something other than a brick wall or test chart? :)

[KenPapai]

I have some basic 16-35 <a href="http://www.kenpapai.com/pro/lens_EF16_35tests.html">

tests here</a> with some 100% crops at the edges. Looks sharp!

<p>

-Ken

[Greg M]

Hopefully this isn't something you've been putting up with for a year now and you can still send it to Canon for review. No way you pay that amount and just "live with it". If it is defective, Canon will either repair or replace it. Whether it's right or not that you have to send it in at this point is moot- this is a man made product and no man made product is 100% guaranteed. That's why Canon sells their lenses with a 1 year warranty- send it in and get it looked at.

[kanellopoulos]

I have the 17-40 and I find it pretty sharp. If you use a proper shutter speed or tripod of course... In fact it is not easy to say if my 24/2.8 prime is any better at 24mm (which you all agreed is a sharp copy). However the 17-40 is not as sharp as my 50 f/1.4.<div></div>

[mark u]

You don't state which body you are using. It's fairly well documented that the 16-35 works less well at wide apertures on full frame digital compared with a film body at the corners and edges. However, it should be sharp at the centre, or when using a crop body. None of Canon's ultra wides are as sharp as the best third party glass, even stopped down a little. However, I've seen images that show some copies as being very soft, even in the centre. If yours is one of those, you should exchange it or have it repaired under warranty. I assume you still have your receipt and haven't tolerated this for the scant year that Canon offers as a warranty period.

[andrew robertson]

Reuben, your nose is growing.

 

According to all available data, especially Canon's MTF charts, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS blows

the 16-35 away. Maybe the lens you borrow is defective.

[umd]

Get a <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS17-35ED">nikon 17-35/2.8</a> and use with an adapter, or with a cheap Nikon body.

[alan_chan4]

Could also be an AF issue. Many people assumed AF would be accurate, but you could be amazed when trying manual focus with magnifier. The extra details are loss without precise focus.

[mike_smith2]

Canon Wide Angle primes and zooms are not in the same league as their medium and telephoto lenses - hence the numerous people who switch to exotic lenses with the FF DSLRS to get a sharp edge to edge wide angle photograph.

 

If you have a 1.3 or 1.6 crop DSLR the edge softness is reduced by the cropping factor (hence some people rave over the canon wide angles, while others despair)

 

So really depends on which body you are using the lens as to how bad you think the lens is.

 

Mike Smith

 

UK

[dayton_p._strickland1]

Regina,

If you are using a digital EOS camera there might be a

compatability problem. When I first got mine I was very, very

disappointed, but over time it seemed to actually get better and

now is very sharp. The dealer suggested I send in the lens and

the camera to have them "matched" to each other. Oh, the

wonders of digital photography!

[bojan_hohnjec1]

I own ef 17-40 thankfuly I've had an opportunity to try 16-35 for a few days before buying it & IT SUCKS ! f2,8 aperture is just useless only center of the image is sharp while the rest of the picture is blured (body is 1dmk2) ,it gets better with f4 & excillent with f5,6.One would have to be uninformed or an idiot to buy this over 17-40 wich is an excillent lens for much less money.In my opinion there are only two pluses for 16-35:somewhat brighter than 17-40 when looked thru viewfinder & 1mm wider than 17-40 but if that is worth spending approximately $600 more than go for it.But remember f2,8 is USELESS !

[regina_bekker]

Thank you for your answers.

I did some testing - shooting newspaper using 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 on 2.9, 4, 5.6, 8, 22 appertures, and on 16mm, 24mm, 35mm, 70 mm, 135mm, and 200mm accordingly.

 

16-35 is very very soft on 2.8 comparing to 24-70 on the same 24 or 35mm. 16 mm is even worse. it is satisfactory only in the small circle of the centre.

 

if you want to look at samples for comparison, I should show you corners or sides? 1:1 on 72 ppi?

 

I found that there is a some kind of focusing problem also. Comparing to 24-70, my 16-35 is slower, and often doesn't focus on closer subjects - focus goes back. I use only 1 central focusing point, and then re-frame the picture after focusing. I never had this problem with 24-70. I have Canon 20D.

 

I am thinking about sending it to Canon for check up and repair.

 

Thanks