Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions  (Read 4624 times)

budjames

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 956
    • http://www.budjamesphotography.com
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« on: January 01, 2009, 04:18:24 am »

I have an original Canon 16-35 f2.8 L lens and I never been quite happy with the sharpness of this lens. Especially when I compare it to my 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens or even the 24-105 f4 IS L lens.

I was curious if anyone has any firsthand experience that compares the lens that I own to the newer Canon 16-35 f2.8L or Canon's widest prime lenses?

Thanks for sharing.

Bud James
Logged
Bud James
North Wales, PA [url=http://ww

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2009, 05:39:19 am »

Hi,

Check this:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

Erik
Quote from: budjames
I have an original Canon 16-35 f2.8 L lens and I never been quite happy with the sharpness of this lens. Especially when I compare it to my 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens or even the 24-105 f4 IS L lens.

I was curious if anyone has any firsthand experience that compares the lens that I own to the newer Canon 16-35 f2.8L or Canon's widest prime lenses?

Thanks for sharing.

Bud James
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

budjames

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 956
    • http://www.budjamesphotography.com
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2009, 07:09:44 am »

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

Check this:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

Erik

Erik, thanks for the link. Good stuff and seemingly unbiased reviews. It's a shame that he didn't include the original Canon 16-35 L lens to make direct comparisons between it and the MkII version.

Cheers.
Bud James
Logged
Bud James
North Wales, PA [url=http://ww

ARD

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 296
    • http://
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2009, 11:30:57 am »

This is an interesting review

16-35mm f/2.8L Vs 17-40mm f/4L

I have the 17-40mm f/4L and have been very impressed with it throughout the range, I bought it based on the above review.

However, you might have a copy of the 16-35 f2.8L that needs to be calibrated. The 16-35 f2.8L is well respected for sharpness so you might want to consider sending it in for calibration before you change it.
Logged

walter.sk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1433
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2009, 09:47:19 pm »

Quote from: ARD
This is an interesting review

16-35mm f/2.8L Vs 17-40mm f/4L

I have the 17-40mm f/4L and have been very impressed with it throughout the range, I bought it based on the above review.

However, you might have a copy of the 16-35 f2.8L that needs to be calibrated. The 16-35 f2.8L is well respected for sharpness so you might want to consider sending it in for calibration before you change it.
I use the 16-35 L 2.8 with a 1DII. I had no problem with the 16-35 with my first camera but when I got the 1DMkII I could not get anything to be tack sharp.  I brought the camera and lens to Canon and they calibrated the lens to the camera.  No problems since.

The 16-35 ii was designed to correct the softness found at the edges of the frame when using full sized sensors, but because my 1DII is not full frame, I'm perfectly happy with the lens.
Logged

djgarcia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 341
    • http://improbablystructuredlayers.net
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2009, 10:10:24 pm »

Just goes to show how wide variation can be. I gave my 17-40L away because it was so bad at the edges on my 1Ds II, soft and lots of CA.
Logged
Over-Equipped Snapshooter - EOS 1dsII &

budjames

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 956
    • http://www.budjamesphotography.com
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2009, 10:12:32 pm »

I just ordered a Canon 16-35 f2.8 L Mk II from B&H Photo to take advantage of the $100 instant rebate that expires mid-January. My old 16-35 is for sale on ebay.

Happy New Year!

Bud James
Logged
Bud James
North Wales, PA [url=http://ww

DaveCurtis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 508
    • http://www.magiclight.co.nz
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2009, 04:06:52 am »

Quote from: budjames
I just ordered a Canon 16-35 f2.8 L Mk II from B&H Photo to take advantage of the $100 instant rebate that expires mid-January. My old 16-35 is for sale on ebay.

Happy New Year!

Bud James



The Canon 16-35 f2.8 L Mk II is the best Canon wide angle zoom currently available. Very sharp in the centre but slightly soft in the outer most zone even when stopped down to f8 on a full frame camera. I'm using the lens on a 1DS Mrk3 and printing A2 prints with success. The only other zoom option for improved performance is moving to the Nikon 14-24 with the adapter or using primes, eg. the canon 14mm f2.8 or Zeiss.

Good luck and Happy New Year
Dave
Logged

Huib

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
    • http://www.huibnederhof.nl
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2009, 04:17:01 am »

You just need some luck to receive a good copy.
The tolerance of the Canon lenses is very big. Especially with the wide angles.

Logged
----------
[url=http://www.huibnederhof.

budjames

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 956
    • http://www.budjamesphotography.com
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« Reply #9 on: January 04, 2009, 06:13:36 am »

Quote from: Huib
You just need some luck to receive a good copy.
The tolerance of the Canon lenses is very big. Especially with the wide angles.

That's a good reason for buying from a reputable dealer. I ordered mine from B&H Photo. They are great to deal with.

Cheers.

Bud
Logged
Bud James
North Wales, PA [url=http://ww

SeanFS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
    • http://www.seanshadbolt.co.nz
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2009, 05:26:40 pm »

Quote from: Huib
You just need some luck to receive a good copy.
The tolerance of the Canon lenses is very big. Especially with the wide angles.


There is also considerable field curvature on the 16- 35. I am using a good original mk1 copy , but it was the second one I tried. When I tested them I realised they didn't focus all in the same place across the frame, particularly at the widest settings, and the corners could be in focus at a much closer point than the centre.
I also tried the 17 - 40 but the copy I tried seemed worse than the 16-35 and not what I expected at all as that lens had some great write ups and I had seen some great shots done with a friends lens.
I am still using the Mk 1 lens and it seems to work better on my 1ds3 than the mk2, but has never been  as bad as some suggested although that could well be sample variation. I haven't changed as it means using a different sized polarising filter than all my other lenses and the hassle doesn't justify the small increase in quality I would get with the MK2 lens. Many of the issues only happen at the very widest settings anyway and I think my money would be better spent on a 14mm prime.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Not happy with original Canon 16-35 f2.8L, need suggestions
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2009, 06:38:41 pm »

When one is buying an 'L' lens, one should expect all copies to be good as you are paying a large premium for the 'L' and normally it's cheaper kit that has wider tolerances and less rejects.
I got a Canon brochure with a magazine the other day and there's a shot taken with the 16-35mm lens and it is very obviously soft at edges. So it seems that even Canon struggle to get a good one.
Mine was one of the very first to arrive in UK and I'd like it to be sharper, though not sure if I could bear to be parted from it whilst Canon Professional tweak it. There was no option of trying several for a good copy, as at the time it was the only copy and I had a job it was needed for.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2009, 06:40:27 pm by jjj »
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele
Pages: [1]   Go Up