EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II

[SPL]

Hello,

Just wondering what everyone thinks of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II. Is this a worthy upgrade to my current EF 17-40mm f/4L?

Sean

[neuroanatomist]

Depends. If you're planning to use it handheld in low light, the 16-35L II is great. If you're going to use it on a tripod stopped down to f/8, the IQ of the 16-35 won't be a whole lot better than the 17-40. Keep in mind that 77mm filters are a common size for many lenses, 82mm less so.

[HDNitehawk]

In another thread you asked about the 24mm F/1.4 II. If you get the 24mm you may have no use for the 16-35mm. I have both and hardly use the 16-35mm at all now. In fact the only time I have had it out in the last year was for video.

If you are adding to your kit, and upgrading you may want to take it a step at a time rather than upgrade to a lens you may be using even less.

[SPL]

Rick, Neuro,

thanks for your advice,..much appreciated!

Sean

[canonclix]

Sean,
I only have experience on a 1.6 crop (60D). I have a 17-40 that has taken outstanding pictures, but thought the 2.8 would be better. I ordered a 16-35 when they went on sale for $1299 in December, but was disappointed with the IQ compared to the 17-40. I sent it back to B&H and had them send me another one. Although it may have been slightly better than the first copy, it was still not better than the 17-40.

My tests are only my opinion, but what I found was that I needed to stop the 16-35 down to nearly 4 before it was acceptable IQ. Comparing both the 16-35 copies at the same aperture (4) to the 17-40, left me sending the second copy back as well.

My 17-40 was a Canon refurbished, so the price difference was nearly $800. I strongly recommend the 17-40 (at least for a crop sensor camera).

Brian.

[SPL]

Thanks Brian,


Thanks for your help and for sharing your experiences with your 17-40mm. I think I will keep her. I use a 1.6 crop also, and have been happy with the IQ. Also, hello from Iowa, I am on the east side in the Quad Cities. Thanks Again!

Sean

[neuroanatomist]

@Brian - the 16-35mm II should not be softer than the 17-40 with both wide open. When I read comments like this, the first question I ask is, how were you focusing the shots? If you were using Live View, fine. But if you were using the regular (phase detect) AF, it may be that the lens needs to be adjusted. Focus errors are more evident with wider apertures, since the DoF is thinner. Unfortunately, with a 60D you can't correct the AF yourself, you'd need to send the lens (or lens + body) into Canon. So...returning the lens may have been the best course.

[canonclix]

Neuro, Thanks for the info - I did notice a significant difference from the first (16-35) to the second one. But still the second one was not any better than the 17-40 at 4.0 (comparing the 16-35 at 4.0 to the 17-40 at 4.0 - and again both at 4.5). At 2.8 I was not happy with the IQ at all (24mm and 35mm is what I mainly compared). I used AF with the center point focus on the 60D aimed at several high contrast and detail subjects (things that normally would show up in pictures that I would use the lens for). On the second lens I tried flat subjects (like wall calendars with a lot of contrast, detail and color) and 3D objects (flowers, etc.).

To get the (indoor, available-light) photos I was pleased with on the 16-35, I always ended up using a flash...which I could do just as easily with the 17-40 and get the same picture.

Believe me - I really wanted to like this lens!

I don't understand what you mean about sending the camera and lens in for calibration - If you don't mind could you explain that? (or point my to a link where it has probably been explained many times before!!!) I have a 70-200 2.8vii; 24-105; 100 2.8L; 300 f4; 50 1.4 in addition to the 17-40 - and all of these focus accurately and I am very happy with the IQ they provide.

Thanks for the help!
Brian

[HDNitehawk]

Brian

All cameras above the 60D have an adjustment to correct lens focus. You can use it to correct a lens that its focus is slightly to the front or back. With the 60D you do not have that, but what you can do is pack all your lenses and camera up and ship them to Canon. They will adjust your camera so that every lens you have will be adjusted. Neuro has written an article that is on this website on how to adjust a camera and lens if the camera has the AF adjustment. Yours doesn't have the ability to do this but the article would give you good info on how the AF system works. There are several threads if you look up AFMA or Auto Focus Manual Adjustment. But the end result will be if you want to tune your equipment you will have to send it to Canon.

I have the 16-35mm, but have never owned the 17-40mm. I have been very pleased with the IQ out of the 16-35mm II. The copy I have is extremely sharp, but not quit as sharp as my 24MM F1.4L II and 35MM F1.4L, I would think like Neuro, that possibly your camera just wasn't playing well with the lens. You could have verified that the lens was OK by setting it on a tripod, and doing tests shooting in live view. In live view you can zoom in to 10x and manually focus, if your lens isn't sharp doing this method then it is very likely the lens is just not sharp.

[canonclix]

Thanks a lot for the info, I will look for that article you referred to. Since part of my refunded lens budget went to a new tripod-I will utilize it in live view on my other lenses, as you described.

Brian.