Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
16-35L Question For Owners.  
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1093 posts, RR: 29
Posted (11 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2919 times:

Hi Guys
Just wondering how soft your 16-35L's are in the corners when shooting at F2.8.
I just picked one up and its pretty average compared to my 17-40L which is outstanding when operating wide open at F4.
Just wondering if i have a dud 16-35L or an awesome 17-40L.

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3267 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2892 times:

I rented one as a trial and did not notice any softness in the corners. It seemed very sharp across the entire range. But not having any planned use for it at this time I opted not to purchase it.


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1093 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

Thanks Jeff.
I am thinking of renting another to do a bit of a comparison and see just how soft it is.
Looking at some of Fred Miranda's 3.2 photo's it looks real soft.

User currently offlineJoe pries From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1957 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2857 times:

Been using it for a while now- never any soft problems at all


User currently offlineFireguy274 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 299 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2854 times:

I bought one and returned it Dehowie...I read alot of reviews on it and some people found the same thing...I found the pictures very average. I have a 17-40 which I feel is sharper...Just my opinion....Artie

User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1093 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2843 times:

Thanks Guys
Its quite ok across the centre but the corners are far softer than the 17-40.
OPtions at the moment are to keep it and use my 17-40 which is a ripper and just use the 16-35 for low light work.
Same here Artie it seems Canon have real issues with the QC when it come to lenses worth big big money.
Many people have returned 16-35's for this exact reason(softness when wide open)and even the good ones don't seem to match at least my 17-40.
Thanks for the input guys.

User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2825 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2802 times:

The 16-35 is well known for being inferior and a lot less ahrper thant the 17-40! i nearly bought it but was told and showed the 17-40 being alot sharper!!!


5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
User currently offlineIL76 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2004, 2239 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

There's a head-to-head comparison here:

User currently offlineHkg_clk From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2723 times:

That comparison is really interesting. I've got the 16-35, and I actually bought it just before the 17-40 came out... I am very surprised that the cheaper lens can beat the more expensive one in so many areas.

But I must also say that the 17-40 is a little dark at f4. Even some cheap third-party ultra wides are faster.

See my homepage for a comprehensive guide to spotting and photography at HKG
User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1093 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2725 times:

I think it still comes down to Canons very poor quality control for there L lenses.
I took me two exchanges to get a good 17-40 and the one i have is very nice indeed.
Has great sharpness at F4,good color and overall is very nice.
Needing the F2.8 i have picked up a 16-35 with the intention of selling the 17-40.
However like many many others i have got a 16-35 which is very nice from F3.2-3.6 upwards but is soft as in the corners at 2.8.
Given that you buy this lens over the 17-40 for the 2.8 and its pretty impressive price you would get a product which is at least usable.
Like many others i am in the dissapointed 16-35 users group.
If you can find a good one they are awesome but from reading it seems like thats about 1 in 5 who atually do get a good one.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Quick Question For Digital Rebel Owners posted Wed Nov 3 2004 22:02:02 by PNEPilot
Question For All D100 Owners posted Thu Jan 2 2003 18:48:11 by Clickhappy
A Question For The Uploaders Of posted Thu Nov 23 2006 14:39:29 by 53Sqdn
Question For The Dutch Spotters posted Fri Sep 29 2006 13:38:22 by Spotterke
Question For Quality/Blurry Rejection .... posted Sat Sep 16 2006 07:37:03 by TriStar501
Question For CLT A.netters posted Sat Aug 26 2006 23:12:20 by Nirmalmakadia
A Question For Screeners... posted Wed May 17 2006 11:57:41 by Chris78cpr
Quick Question For Category! posted Sun Mar 19 2006 02:55:21 by Bubbles
Priority Question For Screeners. Airline? posted Wed Mar 1 2006 22:57:38 by NIKV69
Question For LAX Spotters posted Wed Feb 15 2006 14:37:19 by CaptainJon