Dehowie
Topic Author
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

16-35L Question For Owners.

Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:13 am

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
2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: 16-35L Question For Owners.

Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:10 pm

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
 
Dehowie
Topic Author
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: 16-35L Question For Owners.

Sat Jun 05, 2004 3:20 pm

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
2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
 
joe pries
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 1:04 am

RE: 16-35L Question For Owners.

Sat Jun 05, 2004 9:43 pm

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

JP
 
fireguy274
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:15 am

RE: 16-35L Question For Owners.

Sat Jun 05, 2004 9:48 pm

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
 
Dehowie
Topic Author
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: 16-35L Question For Owners.

Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:25 pm

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
2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
 
chris78cpr
Posts: 2733
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 7:44 am

RE: 16-35L Question For Owners.

Sun Jun 06, 2004 8:01 am

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
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
 
IL76
Posts: 2237
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:43 am

RE: 16-35L Question For Owners.

Mon Jun 07, 2004 3:22 am

There's a head-to-head comparison here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml
Cheers,
Eduard
 
hkg_clk
Posts: 980
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 2:56 pm

RE: 16-35L Question For Owners.

Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:04 am

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
 
Dehowie
Topic Author
Posts: 1069
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:41 am

RE: 16-35L Question For Owners.

Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:40 am

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
2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos