Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 03 Jun 2018 (Sunday) 19:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

EF 35 1.4L II vs 16-35 2.8L III - Sharpness comparison.

 
dkangel
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
652 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 141
Joined May 2005
     
Jul 05, 2018 14:58 |  #16

Marm O. Set wrote in post #18656895 (external link)
sorry, I just re-read the first post and realized you weren't asking for feedback.

I'm really glad to see there is someone else out there that does what you did here :) I just did a bunch of this with my new lens yesterday LOL

*camera nerds*

No worries. Out of curiosity what did you get yesterday?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Marm ­ O. ­ Set
Goldmember
Avatar
2,098 posts
Likes: 224
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Christiansburg, VA
     
Jul 05, 2018 15:24 as a reply to  @ dkangel's post |  #17

70-200 f/4 IS mk II
I had to do a bunch of testing to make sure I didn't get a bum lens.
Everything appears to be great! Except for the IQ @ 200mm and absolute minimum focus distance. It gets slightly worse in that one specific instance.

I gotta say, I'm pretty jealous of that 16-35 III! How is it in everyday use? Noticeably less sharp than the 35L? Or is it only noticeable in side-by-side comparisons?


_______________
still shooting but mostly different film formats

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
12,321 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 4201
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Rathdrum, Idaho
     
Jul 05, 2018 16:08 as a reply to  @ post 18656760 |  #18

Thats for a crop


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dkangel
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
652 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 141
Joined May 2005
     
Jul 05, 2018 18:52 |  #19

Marm O. Set wrote in post #18656927 (external link)
70-200 f/4 IS mk II
I had to do a bunch of testing to make sure I didn't get a bum lens.
Everything appears to be great! Except for the IQ @ 200mm and absolute minimum focus distance. It gets slightly worse in that one specific instance.

I gotta say, I'm pretty jealous of that 16-35 III! How is it in everyday use? Noticeably less sharp than the 35L? Or is it only noticeable in side-by-side comparisons?

Only in side by side. I am very happy with it. I don't do a whole lot of wide angle shots but I needed something for those occasions when they pop up. Expensive glass for a "just in case" :oops:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dkangel
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
652 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 141
Joined May 2005
     
Jul 05, 2018 18:53 |  #20

umphotography wrote in post #18656945 (external link)
Thats for a crop


That is correct. That was my mistake. MarmOSet "Set" me straight :-)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2Risky
Hatchling
6 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2018
Location: Houston, Texas USA
     
Jul 15, 2018 14:31 |  #21

I considered the 16-35 2.8L iii when I purchased the 16-35 f4L IS. Both those lens plus the 35 1.4Lii and even the 24-70 2.8Lii are very close in sharpness at f/5.6 or even f/4. The only thing not close is the price. However, as already mentioned, neither of the 16mm zooms do f/1.4 and they don't really need too. Both are geared more as wide angle landscape lenses when you would normally want to shot with an aperture that provides greater DOF. Doesn't mean that you can't but what is the primary goal you wish to accomplish? If you mainly want a 35mm lens go with the 35 f1.4ii. If you want a wide angle lens, go with the 16-35mm. I'm very happy with the cheaper f4 IS version for my wide shots.

IMAGE: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/hostedphotos_lq/2018/07/3/LQ_922797.jpg
Image hosted by forum (922797) © 2Risky [SHARE LINK]
THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

5,180 views & 3 likes for this thread, 7 members have posted to it and it is followed by 3 members.
EF 35 1.4L II vs 16-35 2.8L III - Sharpness comparison.
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Marcsaa
1381 guests, 128 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.