Question for 16-35 2.8L II owners.

Good morning:

I have a 16-35 2.8L II on it's way and I was looking for some opinions. As you can see from my sig, I have everything from 16-280mm covered but I am starting to crave one of the bigger bird type lenses (500mm 4, 600mm 4 etc).

My question is this: Do you find the 16-35 sharp at 35mm? The reason I ask is because I'm considering dumping my 24-70 to help support the purchase of a larger telephoto. I think I would be ok missing the 35-70 focal length if 35mm was nice and sharp on the 16-35.

Thanks!

1D3 and 16-35/2.8L II at 35mm, 1/60, f/3.5, 3200 ISO. Processed in Lightroom with no edits except WB.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

The 16-35 II is stronger on the wide end than the long end IMHO. I believe my 24-70 bests it at 35mm, especially at wider apertures, although I've never done a controlled test to validate that.

I'm not saying it's bad, just maybe not as good as the 24-70. Here's a shot from the 16-35 II @ 35mm (f/14).

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

my 16-35 is better in every way compared to the 24-70 i had.

my 24-70 was only impressive at 50-70 anything on the wide end had to be stopped down and up close.

Great responses guys, thank you! Keep 'em coming!

These sites might be helpful....of course you have to trust the methodology and there is always the chance that the lens they tested wasn't in spec.

The Digital Picture

You can't do a direct compare here, but you should be able to pull up the 3D modeling of the lens performances in 2 windows side by side and compare visually.

SLRGear

I have both and it's fairly obvious that the 24-70 is much sharper than the 16-35 at all focal lengths (24-35).

Why not wait 'til your 16-35 arrives and do your own testing with the copies you have? Your eyes will be a better judge as to what you consider sharp and if the 16-35 at 35 is sharp enough for your needs.

Shadowman, I have both and I love them. While I don't notice any differences in IQ between the two lenses, I don't consider the 16-35 a substitute for the 24-70. The wider lens introduces a huge amount of distortion, and is not nearly as convenient as the 24-70 in photographing people and events.

You could always pick up a 28-75 tammy to cover that focal length. I had a 24-70 and wasn't much impressed. My tammy on the other hand is quite sharp and it was a 1/3 the price of the 24-70.

Shenanigans wrote in post #9782470
Shadowman, I have both and I love them. While I don't notice any differences in IQ between the two lenses, I don't consider the 16-35 a substitute for the 24-70. The wider lens introduces a huge amount of distortion, and is not nearly as convenient as the 24-70 in photographing people and events.

This is what I figured but that's why I have the 85 1.2 & 70-200... Great answer though I appreciate it.

@tsdevine wow i've been to digital picture a thousand times and never saw that. awesome tool, thanks!