16-35 f4IS, f2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II images

I have done this test for myself. this may or may not be useful too you, but I though I would provide it to you.
the FL tested were 16, 18, 21, 24, 28, 35. tested at full stops from 2.8 to f11 when applicable.
Methodology:

Canon 5d Mrk III, RRS L plate, Gitzo tripod, markins ball head, used both the ball head level, as well the built in camera level.
Focus achieved using live view 10x focus, remote release. IS off when applicable. I only focused once for each focal length on each lens and turned focus off after. All images imported in to LR, in neutral profile, standard 25 1 sharpening. only correcting was I reduced CA by clicking reduce ca, and sliding purple firnge slider to 2. did not correct distortion.
Jpeg eport to full size 90% compression, standard screen sharpening.
there are 70 files in total.

Conclusions. 16-35f4 vs 2.8II. F4 has a fair bit more vignetting, which mostly goes away by f5.6 and f8, has much less ca.
At 18, and 21mm, by f8, they are very similar, with slight edge to f4 lens. At all other focal lengths, 16-35 f4 wins by various margins which is visible even at f11. It is not just the corners as I have said, as 16-35II turns in a good performance at f11 in the corners. it is sides a lot of times, or 2/3 of the way out.

VS 24-70II. the 24-70 is ridiculous at 24. however, at f8, not enough so for me to switch lenses.
At 35mm, f5.6, I cant tell them apart.
In short, I am very happy with this lens from 16 all the way to 35 for landscape use.
Best way is to unzip and import in to LR to compare. that way you can sort by exif (focal lenght/lens/fstop)

Here is the Dropbox link
Link to all images

If you download the images, and find it useful. post a response please.
edit dropbox has locked my account due to exceeive bandwidth

How do I know this isn't some 722MB virus :P

Edit... that was quick. 3.2 minutes to download

kevindar wrote in post #17127062
VS 24-70II. the 24-70 is ridiculous at 24. however, at f8, not enough so for me to switch lenses.

.

Are you saying that the 24-70ii @24mm / f4, is sharper than the new 16-35 @ f4? Also is it sharper at both corner and center?

yes to first. 24-70 II at 24 is nearly perfect. at f4 it matches my tse 24II. 24mm is far and away its strongest focal point. for example, at 50, I would consider the stoped down corner performance quite oridinary, and thats 2 different copies of the lens.
Center sharpness is quite similar between all these lenses, at all corresponding apertures and focal lenghts.

Talley wrote in post #17127662
How do I know this isn't some 722MB virus :P

Edit... that was quick. 3.2 minutes to download

Hey, if you do compare the shots, tell me what your thoughts are.

kevindar wrote in post #17127798
yes to first. 24-70 II at 24 is nearly perfect. at f4 it matches my tse 24II. 24mm is far and away its strongest focal point. for example, at 50, I would consider the stoped down corner performance quite oridinary, and thats 2 different copies of the lens.
Center sharpness is quite similar between all these lenses, at all corresponding apertures and focal lenghts.

Thanks for the review. I am on the fence regarding swapping out the 16-35 2.8 for the new f4 version. How is the AF? f4 lenses cannot utilized off-center double cross type AF for the 5diii. Probably does not matter since its wide angle and f4, but would like to know.

I certainly have not stressed the AF. I have shot primarily in good light out doors with it, including pictures of family and kids, where it is super fast and accurate.
I sold the 2.8II. I think the 2.8II is still a better indoor video lens, and a better even lens. cant go wrong with either. the f4 does give you some improved side and corner performance even stopped down, but a lot of it wide open.
this is my extent of use of it for people.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oTj7​Lj

Nice sun star too. It seems just as good as the 2.8ii.

I like 2.8II sunstar better. the F4 has too many rays (18 I think). a bit too crowded. cant see the full effect here.

kevindar wrote in post #17127799
Hey, if you do compare the shots, tell me what your thoughts are.

My thoughts pretty much mimic the numbers on photozone.de between these lenses. All equal in center. 24-70II rivals all at 24-35 when it comes to distortion.

Sharpness is pretty much eh at F5.6 between the 16-35 F4 IS and 24-70 but the 2.8 II lacks in corners.

In the end does it make a difference between them... sure. The two wide angles are comparable in price. I'd definitely choose the F4 it's just that much better. Only thing the 2.8 has is 2.8 but thats it.

I find the 17-40 to hold sharpness into the corners better than the 2.8 II version from my experience with my buddies copy. Although once the extreme corners hit on the 17-40 they are really bad. I'm talking the very tips.

Good samples too. Good job!

thanks Talley. I tried two copies of 17-40, and on the wide end, my copy of 16-35II was definitely better in the corners, but not every where in the frame. given the optical quality of 16-35 f4 IS, and that it has IS, I think its a good value. I can essentially use it at f5.6-f8, through its entire zoom range, and if I have enough dof, the image should be sharp corner to corner, so it really does what it is supposed to do.