16-35 f2.8L lacking Sharpness - no better than a 28-135 ? [Archive]

TimOLondon

31st of January 2006 (Tue), 17:41

Hi all – my first posting on the forum so would be very glad for any feedback and opinions. I got a 5D in November 05, and its fantastic, so good I decided to extend my lens collection. I got a 16-35 f2.8 L USM last week. I like the build of it and have taken some fine shots.
However after a couple of days I began to wonder if it as sharp as it should be – given its an L and expensive. So I did a comparison with my 5yr. old 28-135 IS lens. I took 8 pictures with each:
4 near subject,
4 long way away subject,
at 28mm, and at 35 mm
at f3.5, and at f13.

All were at AV priority, ISO = 160, size was JPEG medium.

After much deliberation looking at them in Photoshop – down to actual pixels, I’m not sure there is much in it between the 2. This I find very disappointing. I’m not forcing the 16-35 to its limits (i.e. 16mm and f2.8, or 35mm at f2.8 or f22), and its simply not any better than the 28-135, in some instances its marginally worst IMO.

By the way I did some similar tests with my other lens – a 50 F1.4, and when compared (at f4.5 and f13) to the 28-135 at 50mm the prime is really noticeably better - as I’d expect.

What do people think – is my 16-35 a bad one, is the 28-135 especially good ? How does Canon react to their lens being sent back ? Many thanks in anticipation.:D

mbze430

31st of January 2006 (Tue), 17:46

Ah welcome to MY horror! I had own a 16-35, oh... all the way back to 2001/02. Used it mostly on FILM. It was great, and acceptible. TILL DIGITAL CAME!

Long story short. I went through 3 copies of 16-35 till I finally found one that is acceptible on my 1dsmk2. let just say it was a long and exhausting journey.

Good luck

Tapeman

31st of January 2006 (Tue), 19:44

My 16-35 is a fantastic lens.

cc10d

31st of January 2006 (Tue), 21:56

My 16-35 is one of my sharper lens. I am very satisfied with it.

Mills

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 00:05

Mine is great. No problems here.

Lester Wareham

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 07:57

The 16-35 seems to be more variable than some of the other wide Canons. The interesting thing is if you look at the Canon MTF data the 17-40 is loads better than the 16-35 yet lots of people have the experience the other way around.

Lord_Malone

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 08:51

I can't comment because I haven't even touched my 16-35 yet. It arrived at the house while I was in Iraq. I'll be home by the end of the week, so I'll be able to play with it this weekend. I'll compare it with my 28-105mm, 35L and Leica 35-70mm @ 35mm.

toyguru

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 09:39

I just got my 16-35 last week too and going to test it out today. I'm hoping to get the clarity that I'm expecting. It has impressed me with color reproduction in RAW so far, but I haven't been able to use it during the daylight yet. I have the same question about the 2 lenses and will try it out today.

busterboy

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 10:06

My 16-35 is one of my sharper lens. I am very satisfied with it.

And I cannot complain about mine..:D

Sample here..:cool:

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~tprocter/Various/truck.jpg

abigailandsam

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 10:33

I recently obtained a 16-35 while in Japan. I have NO complaints with mine whatsoever. Here are a few sample shots.

http://i.pbase.com/o4/14/603214/1/55451154.IMG_5387sm.jpg
1/100s f/3.5 at 16.0mm iso1600

http://i.pbase.com/o4/14/603214/1/55366114.IMG_5347sm.jpg
1/400s f/5.0 at 35.0mm iso400

http://i.pbase.com/o4/14/603214/1/55495907.IMG_5292sm.jpg
1/60s f/4.0 at 20.0mm iso800

Sean-Mcr

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 11:11

I had one, main reason i sent it back was because 2.8 wasn't fast enough for me and i thought it was too soft wide open. Stopped down fine, but i may as well have bought the 17-40 if i was going to be shooting F/5-F/11

mbze430

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 13:22

Most of you that haven't complain are shooting with a cropped sensor. Like I said. I didn't noticed my copy having a problem while owning a 20D.

Edge softness is the key to the problem.

Sean-Mcr

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 13:26

I have a 20D and i was not greatly impressed.

My opinion (and that's all it is) is that the cost over the 17-40 is not warrented.

aliflack

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 14:49

However after a couple of days I began to wonder if it as sharp as it should be – given its an L and expensive. So I did a comparison with my 5yr. old 28-135 IS lens.

First off - sorry to hear about this. Its not great to lay down that kind of cash and not feel satisfied with the product!

I bought the 16-35 in time for my sister's wedding in december so have only been using my copy for a couple of months. I have used the 28-135 extensively for over a year now and feel comfortable saying that the 16-35 blows it out of the water in sharpness.

The 28-135 needs stopping down to F6.3 at a minimum (for me) to start getting crisp looking images, 7.1 and 8 improve matters considerably more. The 16-35 gives me that level of sharpness wide open.

A couple of pics to prove my point:

16-35 @ 35mm, f2.8, 1/80th, flash
http://www.alistair-flack-photography.co.uk/Forum_Images/CRW_4869_JFR.jpg

28-135 @ 28mm, F8.0, 1/200th
http://www.alistair-flack-photography.co.uk/Portfolios/Travel/2005%20Dublin/images/Hide&Seek.jpg

All I can suggest is that you either have a poor copy of the 16-35, or perhaps something in your workflow is causing issues?

slin100

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 16:58

Alistair,

It looks like your 16-35 shot is password protected. It's not showing up.

elTwitcho

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 17:02

Not only that, but it's making a popup appear on everyone's screen when they load the page...

richardho11

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 18:30

I borrowed my roommates 16-35 a few times and VERY VERY happy with the results! Tack Sharp! Thinking of getting one myself, but its hard when I can borrow his anytime I like. lol. :lol:

TimOLondon

1st of February 2006 (Wed), 18:50

aliflack

2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 06:18

Not only that, but it's making a popup appear on everyone's screen when they load the page...

Sorted - hope you all can see what I mean now!

aliflack

2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 06:24

Many thanks to you all who have responded, its most heartening to get people with an equal passion responding to a query from a complete stranger. Thanks to busterboy, abigailandsam and aliflack for posting their images. I think my conclusion from seeing them is that I’m taking the 16-35 back to my dealer tomorrow, with example prints and the original compact flash, to see what they say. Hopefully it can be sent back to Canon for a re-calibration (I think that’s the correct term !). To those yet to do a similar test, I’d love to hear you conclusions.

No worries, I can only guess how frustrating it is to feel disatisfied with new gear. I wonder if sometimes we have our expectations set too high by some of the outstanding work shown here by other members - I know I would struggle to achieve one what they seem to on a regular basis...

I believe it's worth taking a week or two to suss out if it's your fault (poor technique, subject matter etc) before blaming the equipment.

TimOLondon

2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 07:58

I took the 16-35 back to the dealer (respected Canon Professional dealer in London). They looked at the example prints and completely agreed, the 16-35 was no better than the 28-135 and in some cases (e.g. @f3.5 and 35mm) the 28-135 was sharper. Absolutely no problem - they said it must go back to Canon, so thats where its gone. Lets see what Canon come up with. This is very frustrating, but I'm looking forward to getting it back and to take some great (i.e. weird) 16 mm shots, and really sharp 35mm f2.8 ones. One of the reasons I went for this lens was a yearning for the 35mm f1.4 prime, but a hope the 16-35 would still do great 35mm f2.8 shots, with more flexibility due to the zoom. I have found the 16-35 on a 5D picks up an amazing amount of light in very dark conditions. If only it was sharper !

Andy_T

2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 08:08

Tim,

maybe a bit off-topic, but you might take a look at the 28/1.8 for a fast wide prime on your 5D.

As to the statement '16-35 is not any better than 17-40' ... that's definitely also the verdict of most tests.

Best regards,
Andy

aliflack

2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 09:12

As to the statement '16-35 is not any better than 17-40' ... that's definitely also the verdict of most tests.

Apart from in the f2.8-f4.0 range you mean? ;)

Andy_T

2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 10:19

Yes, the addition is definitely true :lol:
I was talking about sharpness from f/4.0 onwards.

One of those reviews you can see here:Luminous landscape comparison 16-35/2.8 with 17-40/4.0 (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml)

Best regards,
Andy

Larry M

2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 11:15

Well this is a disappointing thread:( as I just ordered the 16-35mm lens a few days ago from B&H. I guess I'll wait til it gets here and then check it out and see if I ended up with a fuzzy paper weight.
Larry M.

mbze430

2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 21:30

I can almost be certain that 80% that you are better off buying another copy of 16-35L I send my UQ copy in twice, came back same or worse. than tried a US copy, than a UT copy.

Sean-Mcr

2nd of February 2006 (Thu), 21:43

. One of the reasons I went for this lens was a yearning for the 35mm f1.4 prime, but a hope the 16-35 would still do great 35mm f2.8 shots, with more flexibility due to the zoom.

Sadly not the conclusion i've come to after owning both lenses, Tim.

I just have the prime now, and i don't miss the 16-35 in the slightest

rklepper

3rd of February 2006 (Fri), 06:36

rklepper

3rd of February 2006 (Fri), 06:37

I think it would be quite telling if we knew how many actually had this lens. Frustrating when so many comment on hearsay or attempts to interpret MTF data.

Lester Wareham

3rd of February 2006 (Fri), 07:55

Based on what?
Based on the number of complaints from users largely. You can check the boards out yourself, lots more people are disapointed with the 16-35 than the 17-40. Of course the extra expense of the 16-35 must make any problems sting more.

There is very little clear data and well done tests, I wish there was.

Also there are a few objective reviews, http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/142/sort/2/cat/11/page/1 and some examples on the web http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcamera.impress.co. jp%2F06_01%2Fauth%2Ftoku1%2F&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools.

I agree there are lots who are very happy with their copy of the 16-35, but there are also quite a number who have tried 3 times to get good copies.

The fact is the MTF data for the 16-35 is not as good as the 17-40 and any process variation is likely to show up more in standard image making.

There are enough problems reported on this lens to put me off.

Lester Wareham

3rd of February 2006 (Fri), 08:02

I think it would be quite telling if we knew how many actually had this lens. Frustrating when so many comment on hearsay or attempts to interpret MTF data.

I agree, however the MTF data is about as good as it gets until there are a significant number of tests for each lens (5-10) conducted the same way.

The MTF data is not hard to interpret with some effort. Of course it is simulation and does not tell you everything, but it is better than a vacuum.

The problem is even when correspondents have the lens their tests are normally scenic shots in non-controlled conditions and so can't be compared with other examples.

Unfortunately in the case of wide angles in general and the 16-35 in particular it is not just a case of pixel peeping. A bad copy shows up even in an A4 print.

Lord_Malone

3rd of February 2006 (Fri), 14:15

TimOLondon

8th of March 2006 (Wed), 17:44

This lens was sent back to Canon in the UK, by my very understanding local Professional shop. After 4 weeks Canon returned it saying - very briefly - that the focus had been adjusted. As far as I was concerned it was never the focus in question, but the basic image quality / sharpness to be expected from L glass.
After a weekend of tests it still was undoubtedly no better than my mid-range 28-135 IS lens at identical (where possible) settings.
It's now back at the shop where their (York Cameras, London) excellent service promises me a replacement lens - WHEN CANON CAN MANAGE TO SUPPLY ONE.

It seems there is a major delay in Canon suppling lens the world over (?) - Has anyone else experenced this ?

I await a good version of this lens. After 5 or so weeks of thinking about it a good 16-35 L is what I want, so I'm bidding my time for one....