Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
16-35L Question For Owners.  
User currently offlineDehowie From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2182 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.
Thanks
Darren

9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJeffM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2155 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.

--Jeff


User currently offlineDehowie From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2145 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.
Darren


User currently offlineJoe pries From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

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

JP


User currently offlineFireguy274 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2117 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 , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2106 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.
Darren


User currently offlineChris78cpr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2065 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!!!

Chris


User currently offlineIL76 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2020 times:

There's a head-to-head comparison here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
Cheers,
Eduard


User currently offlineHkg_clk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1986 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.


User currently offlineDehowie From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1988 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.
Darren


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