The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Something better than the 16-35L II

soboyle

New member
I just picked up a copy of the Canon 16-35, wanted to replace my 17-40 for the slight angle gain, and speed. What a disappointment. The center is sharp with good contrast but the corners are mush @ 16mm. I've read a wide variety of reviews on this lens, and they are all over the place. Are copy to copy variations that significant with the 16-35? Should I keep trying until I get a decent copy? I thought of going with a zeiss prime instead, the 18 or 21, but would rather have autofocus on all lenses. Any thoughts?
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Long time that I shot this lens, but over my time with Canon I owned 2 copies and both were excellent. I preferred this lens much more than any of the Nikons (17-35) or Sony Zeiss 16-35.

So I would give it a second chance with another copy. IMHO this is the best 16-35 zoom available on the market.
 

pophoto

New member
My experience is the same with Shaun, I received mine from B&H and had it returned after trying it out. I now shoot primes exclusively with my 5Ds with one exception: 70-200L II. Although my widest Canon is the 24mm.
 
S

ssanacore

Guest
I find my 16-35mm II excellent at certain focal lengths when stopped down. In some cases almost as good as my Leica 19. I always keep it stopped down past f8 at a minimum or 11-16 whenever I can to assure even sharpness and a flat field. I'm sure there is refraction at 16 but it's worth it over softness in the corners. At 5.6 or more open, I have found strange focus issues in various parts of the frame. Careful manual focus when tethered works very well, but of course that's probably not why you buy a lens like that.

Hence the Leica, which is razor sharp across the field at f4 - f5.6. But you can't really compare a WA zoom with a prime like the Leica or the Zeiss 21. They are different tools. If ultimate image quality is what you need, then go for the Zeiss or a late model Leica 19 if you can find one.
 

soboyle

New member
I decided to try another copy of the 16-35, and also ordered the Zeiss ZE 21 2.8. Fairly confident the 21 will be the keeper, and just rely on my 17-40 for a zoom in this range. Anyone with experience with the Zeiss 21 on a Canon 5D MK2?
 

fotografz

Well-known member
This range of zoom has always been Canon's weak spot. I owned three 16-35s including 16-35-IIs twice ... the last of which I send back and the replacement was worse.

My best luck to date has been with a Nikon 14-24 which was excellent but lacked that important 28mm and 35mm settings ... and currently the best yet, a Zeiss ZA 16-35 ... which I had to send the first back for another, which was much better. I had to return a ZA 24/2 for a better copy also. Better color rendition than the Canon or Nikon.

Sometimes it is the luck of the draw I guess.

-Marc
 

soboyle

New member
Marc
Are you using the ZA 16-35 on canon with an adapter?
I sent back the first Zeiss 21 2.8 that I tested, soft in one corner. Otherwise it is a superb lens, love the Zeiss color and contrast and sharpness.
Still waiting for the 2nd copy of the 16-35 to arrive. I don't have my hopes high that it will be a keeper. The 17-40 is quite good, so will likely stick with that and add a Zeiss prime.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Marc
Are you using the ZA 16-35 on canon with an adapter?
I sent back the first Zeiss 21 2.8 that I tested, soft in one corner. Otherwise it is a superb lens, love the Zeiss color and contrast and sharpness.
Still waiting for the 2nd copy of the 16-35 to arrive. I don't have my hopes high that it will be a keeper. The 17-40 is quite good, so will likely stick with that and add a Zeiss prime.
No, I was just referencing the category of wide zooms in general. I've used most of them from each maker ... including the excellent Contax N 16-35 made by Zeiss, as well as those mentioned above. The Zeiss ZA 16-35 I now use is an AF lens for the Sony A mount ... specifically used on my FF Sony A900.

Zeiss seems to be concentrating mostly new product efforts on Cine lenses.

If I were still shooting Canon, I'd be mightly tempted to go for the Zeiss Distgon 15/2.8 at a mere $3,000 ... but who needs two kidneys anyway :ROTFL:

Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Review

-Marc
 

soboyle

New member
The 2nd Zeiss 21 2.8 is a keeper. At first I didn't think so, I did a test against my 17-40 shooting a bookshelf at close range, +/- 3' distance. The 17-40 was sharper across part of the frame. Next test was at a more normal shooting distance of about 15' to the main subject, the difference between the Zeiss and the 17-40 was remarkable. The Zeiss was sharp with beautiful contrast and color to the edges, with a slight softening at the corners. The 17-40 was quite blurry in comparison at the edges and esp in the corners. And this is a very good copy of the 17-40. Very pleased with the Zeiss, best WA I've seen on my 5D2.
 
Top