16-35 2.8/L Quality Control - Has it improved?

[Ubtree]

I have spent what must be hours reading posts on various forums comparing the 16-35 with the 17-40 and various non-Canon lenses, and it seems to be a commonly held belief that the quality of individual 16-35 lenses is variable.

However, I have seen a reference in another forum to Canon having beefed up their quality control for this lens in August 2005 (but no further details were given). Is anyone aware whether this is the case? And do you have any details?

Thanks,

Ubtree

[PetKal]

I have spent what must be hours reading posts on various forums comparing the 16-35 with the 17-40 and various non-Canon lenses, and it seems to be a commonly held belief that the quality of individual 16-35 lenses is variable.

However, I have seen a reference in another forum to Canon having beefed up their quality control for this lens in August 2005 (but no further details were given). Is anyone aware whether this is the case? And do you have any details?

Thanks,

Ubtree

Welcome to the Forum, Ubtree. Hope you will find your stay with us both instructive and enjoyable.:)

That is a good question although the original info you got might have been just some piece of hear-say (wishfull thinking ?) from the FM forum or some such.
It seems to me that the subject wide angle zoom has been plagued by a copy-to-copy sharpness inconsistency which is similar to the "affliction" of its longer cousin, the 24-70 2.8. That is a real pitty, because both zooms have a comparable potential for superb IQ, and many copies thereof are actually excellent.

Obviously, I do not have the answer, but second the inquiry.

[timnosenzo]

I have heard this rumor as well and I don't know if its true or not. I very recently purchased a 16-35 with a November build date. Personally I've been really impressed with its performance.

[Tapeman]

I cannot coment on whether or not it has improved, having only bought one,(about 5 months ago).

I have been reading posts about the lens for 12-16 months in preperation to purchase a lens of this type. Based on that I would say that I see fewer negitive posts now than before.

BTW: I am very happy with mine & recomend it highly.

[MrChad]

I'd say buy a copy from one of the highly recommended online retailers (to save $$), test the *#@$! out of the lens. If it doesn't meet your needs send it to Canon for checking again.

My 24-70mm f2.8L got dropped after 2 weeks of ownership, what a horrible thing. But aside from all my niggles and nit picks about this lens post drop and post repair issues which may be in my head mostly (I never checked the lens new), I must say this may be for the best. Testing this weekend has revielled my shots appear sharper then ever to me at wide open. Canon must have done a super job recalibrating the lens?

I was happy with optics before the drop they are down right insanely good now.

I'd buy one use it (don't drop it) and send it in if you doubt it's optical performance. It took them 2 weeks to rebuild my lens (new zoom ring, new collar, new filter ring and new front lens element(S) group, a calibration should go much faster and be free :)

[Ubtree]

Thanks for the replies. I e-mailed the person who referred to the August 2005 "beefing up" in another forum, but did not receive a reply.

I guess the fact that this thread hasn't caused anyone to respond by giving a bad experience of a 16-35 purchased during the last 6 months might also suggest that there have been improvements made. But I guess, as MrChad says, the final test is to jump in and try one,

Thanks again.

[mbze430]

I went through 3 copy of the 16-35mm to find the "best of". It mainly CA problem with full sensor camera. for those with 1.6 or 1.3 will more than likely find that their 16-35 is fine.

[SkipD]

I doubt that any "improvements" have been made by Canon, at least in the design. If the problematic copies of the 16-35 have been a significant percentage of those shipped, they might have done something to their quality control methodology, but we'll never know about that as consumers.

On forums like this, we're likely to hear of any problems - real or imagined - loudly and as a result we may get a bad impression of an otherwise excellent product.

That said, my 16-35 has performed as expected - along with my 24-70 and 70-200 IS.

[Exit]

I got my 16-35 last month and it's amazingly sharp. I tested it on a 5D and it was quite good at the corners as well!

[summerwind4]

here is a shot with mine and it is wide open, no PP.
this shot was from a 20D. i just bought the 5D and was expecting not so good at 16mm at f/2.8...........not so, it blew me away as it is almost perfect from edge to edge at f/2.8 on the full frame.......stopped down 1 stop and it is.

http://www.pbase.com/image/54265707/original.jpg