EOS 16-35mm & 17-40mm

[mike_minogue]

<p>I'm currently using the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM lens and I'm noticing a distinct lack of sharpness on the left and right hand sides of the photographs. It doesn't happen 100% of the time, but it happens at least 50% of the time.<br>

<br />I know that the 16-35mm is notorious for not being as sharp as the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens. I'm just trying to find out if this is indeed the truth–if this is indeed the case–from some Canon users who have actually used both lenses.<br>

Thanks very much for everyone's input!</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<blockquote>

<p> <br /> I find the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens to be at least slightly sharper in the center at all apertures (including f/2.8 vs. f/4) and focal lengths. At 35mm, they are very similar. Because the 17-40 corners are darker at comparison apertures wider than f/5.6, care must be taken to differentiate between differences in corner sharpness vs differences in vignetting. At 16/17mm, the corner sharpness results were mixed with both lenses showing better results at various areas of the frame in various comparisons - the 16-35 is slightly better for a generalization. At 24mm, the 16-35 II wins the corner matchups and at 35mm they are mostly similar with the 17-40 having an slight edge - especially with close subjects (such as the ISO 12233 Chart)....</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>...which is an excerpt from the : Review of the 16-35mmf/2.8 on the www.the-digital-picture.com site. Read the whole article... link:<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

 

[mike_minogue]

<p>Thanks Mike!</p>

[peter_daalder]

<p>More interesting reading via <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00X8rZ" target="blank">this recent thread.</a></p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I replaced the 17-40 F4L with the 16-35 f2.8 II about 2-3 years ago. When I bought the 17-40 i also tested the 16-35 f2.8 mkI and found that the 116-35 mk I was disappointing so i bought the cheaper F4 lens. My example of the 16-35 F2.8 II is sharper than my old 17-40 was both at the center and at the edges. Indeed I found that the difference is greater when used on a full frame body than on an APS-C body. However, I do not have good tests of thge 17-40 on an APS-C body as I was not an APS-C shooter until I got a 7D and mainly shot the 17-40 with my EOS 1DIIN and with film bodies. Thus my only APS-C images with the 17-40 are taken with a Digital Rebel (EOS 300) which does not produce a high quality image.<br>

I find that my 16-35 F2.8 II is best at wider angles and gets worse at 35mm (indeed this is where the two lenses are the closest). I also find that at F2.8 and 35mm the edges suffer the most from softness. How bad is your softness because even with images taken at F2.8 and 35mm I find that you have to enlarge very big to see a real problem. This image and crop show the issue for the 16-35 F2.8 II</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>It's not unusual for faster lens in a series to be softer: Canon's 3 50mm primes are a case in point: the cheapy f1.8 is sharpest, the 1.2 L softest.</p>

<p>The Luminous Landscape compares the first gen 16-35 to the 17-40, and found the 17 sharper at wide end, but 16 sharper at long end:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml</a></p>

<p>With the 16-35II I believe one of the aims was to generally sharpen it, and they look to have succeeded, have a look at the Digital Picture's target shot comparison between 16-35II and 17-40:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2</a></p>

<p>My take, the 16-35II is slightly <em>sharper</em> than the 17-40, assuming decent copies of both. That said, lens are analogue instruments: I've done test shots with my 24-70 and 24-105, and then done careful review of both. In some areas one lens will be ahead, but go to another corner and the tables can be turned.</p>

<p>I went with the 17-40, for the price, filter size, dimensions/weight, and am quite happy with it's performance.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I replaced the 17-40 F4L with the 16-35 f2.8 II about 2-3 years ago. When I bought the 17-40 i also tested the 16-35 f2.8 mkI and found that the 116-35 mk I was disappointing so i bought the cheaper F4 lens. My example of the 16-35 F2.8 II is sharper than my old 17-40 was both at the center and at the edges. Indeed I found that the difference is greater when used on a full frame body than on an APS-C body. However, I do not have good tests of thge 17-40 on an APS-C body as I was not an APS-C shooter until I got a 7D and mainly shot the 17-40 with my EOS 1DIIN and with film bodies. Thus my only APS-C images with the 17-40 are taken with a Digital Rebel (EOS 300) which does not produce a high quality image.<br>

I find that my 16-35 F2.8 II is best at wider angles and gets worse at 35mm (indeed this is where the two lenses are the closest). I also find that at F2.8 and 35mm the edges suffer the most from softness. How bad is your softness because even with images taken at F2.8 and 35mm I find that you have to enlarge very big to see a real problem. This image and crop show the issue for the 16-35 F2.8 II</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I replaced the 17-40 F4L with the 16-35 f2.8 II about 2-3 years ago. When I bought the 17-40 i also tested the 16-35 f2.8 mkI and found that the 116-35 mk I was disappointing so i bought the cheaper F4 lens. My example of the 16-35 F2.8 II is sharper than my old 17-40 was both at the center and at the edges. Indeed I found that the difference is greater when used on a full frame body than on an APS-C body. However, I do not have good tests of thge 17-40 on an APS-C body as I was not an APS-C shooter until I got a 7D and mainly shot the 17-40 with my EOS 1DIIN and with film bodies. Thus my only APS-C images with the 17-40 are taken with a Digital Rebel (EOS 300) which does not produce a high quality image.<br>

I find that my 16-35 F2.8 II is best at wider angles and gets worse at 35mm (indeed this is where the two lenses are the closest). I also find that at F2.8 and 35mm the edges suffer the most from softness. How bad is your softness because even with images taken at F2.8 and 35mm I find that you have to enlarge very big to see a real problem. This image and crop show the issue for the 16-35 F2.8 II</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Here is a crop from the above image</p><div></div>

[KenPapai]

<p>Can you repeat that a 4th time Philip? Maybe a new record on saying the same thing as nauseum thru the years on these 2 lenses....... Perfect example above.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Now here ius a crop taken at about the same time but at F2.8 and 35mm. These images were taken as digital polaroids for my Fuji GX 680 MF body that I was actually shooting with that morning (hence I was really only using the 5DII as a meter - I was not worried about optimizing the lens settings). For lanscape try and avoid using the lens wide open.</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I repeated it Ken since the question was the same and thus the OP had probably not seen the earlier posts. Indeed the last crop has never been posted before as I only made it this morning to show F2.8 vs f5.6 on the 16-35 II</p>

[mike_minogue]

<p>Thanks for all the responses -- much appreciated!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

The 16-35 is most certainly NOT known for being soft in comparison to the 17-40. There are differences between these

two lenses that can influence a purchase choice, but this isn't it.

 

If you have a softness problem isn't symmetrical your lens is either physically damaged or, more likely, needs to go to

Canon for alignment/adjustment. This problem could occur with a faulty new lens, and after use such things can happen to

any lens.

 

(I am making the assumption that the cause is not related to shooting technique issues.)

 

Dan

[mike_minogue]

<p>Contacted Canon today - the lens (and the 1Ds Mark III) is going back to Canon for assessment.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>