Concerned about a 16-35 f/2.8L I bought used

Hi all,
The 16-35L I bought used seems to have a 'glow' to it. Here's a 100% crop of a photo taken w/ the 16-35. Tell me what you notice about the 'glow'.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

MizzouMan_2000 wrote in post #11902480
Hi all,
The 16-35L I bought used seems to have a 'glow' to it. Here's a 100% crop of a photo taken w/ the 16-35. Tell me what you notice about the 'glow'.


Couple more 100% crops for ya with the 16-35.
This one shows more 'glowing' around the edges of the book and fingers.


This one shows that it's actually pretty sharp. This was at f/2.8. No sharpening done in post. ISO 125, f/2.8 1/250 flash off to camera right bounced off ceiling.


Full image:


What do you think? Return or typical?
Thanks!

I think looking at small 100% crops can show any number of things. The full size image looked fine

yeah I have to agree... full size looks fine...

btw, the only thing I could think of that is similar to this is fungus... if there are fungus in the glass it would come out a bit whitish... I dunno lets wait for others to chime in.

also the widest aperture of a lens will show a number of things.

do you have a filter on?

Is the "glow" only around overexposed/white areas?

5DamienMkII wrote in post #11904133
also the widest aperture of a lens will show a number of things.

do you have a filter on?

No filter.

runninmann wrote in post #11904157
Is the "glow" only around overexposed/white areas?

So far it seems to be.

watt100 wrote in post #11904085
I think looking at small 100% crops can show any number of things. The full size image looked fine

I believe that the glow of the ball player is fairly obvious in the full-view of the photo. I'll have to go back to see if I still have the file and post the whole scene.

Thanks for all the feedback, everybody.