16-35L gets a bad rap on full frame bodies

Andy

there's loads of threads on other boards trashing the 16-35L on a full-frame body - and therein lies one reason why there's a big demand for the zeiss optics - namely that 21mm f/2.8 distagon, which, is a *fine* piece of glass, with amazing color, contrast and sharpness - corner to corner. but, to use it, you give up autofocus and exact metering ... so there's a tradeoff.

at yosemite, i had a very hard time choosing sharper images from my zeiss 21mm and my canon 24L, shot on a full frame body...

so my point? for me, i sold the zeiss becuase i'm really happy with the responsiveness of my 16-35L files, even at 16mm, to normal post-processing and sharpening work.

here's an example:

the full scene (click for exif):


the extreme lower right corner, a 100% crop, 800 pixels wide, and sharpened with unsharp mask in ps cs2.


the extreme lower left corner, a 100% crop, 800 pixels wide, and sharpened with unsharp mask in ps cs2:


i shot at 18mm, 21mm and 35mm as well, and the corner sharpness was even better.

leebase

But Andy, it's not WAY COOL and exotic to say you are using a mere Canon L when you HAD been able to say you shot with a Zeiss Distagon

Not that I'm of a mind to plop down the $1300 on the 16-35L, having bought the Tamron 17-35 f2.8/4 -- do you have a feel for the comparison of the 16-35L to the 17-40 f4 L?

I mean, besides the obvious extra stop. People LOVE the 17-40L.

Lee

Andy

leebase wrote:

-- do you have a feel for the comparison of the 16-35L to the 17-40 f4 L?

I mean, besides the obvious extra stop. People LOVE the 17-40L.

Lee

the 17-40L is top-notch - for landscaping it's hard to tell the difference between the 16-35L and the 17-35L, you're usually stopped down, f/8 or f/11... and both lenses perform really well there! i've heard folks say the color and contrast is a tad better on the 16-35L, but that's very subjective, eh? take a look at mahesh thapa's galleries for some excellent landscape photography with the 17-40L

Shay Stephens

So basically your saying that the 16-35mm on the 1Ds II is good?

Andy

Shay Stephens wrote:

So basically your saying that the 16-35mm on the 1Ds II is good?

DavidTO

Whatever happened to Prime-Boy?

Andy

DavidTO wrote:

Whatever happened to Prime-Boy?

yuh - if there was a prime at say, 18 or 21, L quality, i'd be a buyer!

Andy

the zeiss 21 has some crazy moustache distortion
one of the things that bugged me about the zeiss 21 distagon - is the distortion - it's got this crazy moustache distortion thing going on....

zeiss 21 f/2.8


canon 16-35L @ 21mm


i know, i know, in most landscape applications it probably wouldn't be noticed, but it was a turn-off for me. and look how true the canon is

wxwax

Wow, thanks for the comparison. How interesting and how odd, for such a $$ lens. Never heard the term "moustache distortion", thanks for a first.

gtc

PS lens filter?
hi andy

is that stuff fixable in photoshop cs' lens filter?

andy wrote:

one of the things that bugged me about the zeiss 21 distagon - is the distortion - it's got this crazy moustache distortion thing going on....

i know, i know, in most landscape applications it probably wouldn't be noticed, but it was a turn-off for me. and look how true the canon is

Andy

gtc wrote:

hi andy

is that stuff fixable in photoshop cs' lens filter?

actually something like panotools' ptlens would do a much better job - but it is an extra step...

Matthew Saville

andy wrote:

actually something like panotools' ptlens would do a much better job - but it is an extra step...

Extra steps are bad lol!

I've decided that anything with a name as fancy as "vario-tessar" will never, ever be within my budget hehehe...

However, I have shot with the 16-35 L as well as Nikon's 17-35, and I must say that they're stunning works of art. I saw some photos with the 16-35 L once with bigtime vignetting, but Andy's shot is absolutely awesome, and those corners are beautiful. Tack sharp. And holy cow, I'm REALLY impressed by those straight lines at 16m, I can scroll them to the edge of my browser and yep, they're straight as an arrow. What I don't like though is when I'm shooting landscape vertically and the horizon is right at the top of the frame, THEN it gets real curvey heheh...

-Matt-

problemchild

I can always tell when the 16-35 is used its so soft. I had 3 copies. My buddy had 6 all were soft. The edges..fogetaboutit.

Its only good 5 feet away center f8, anything lese its junk. Get the 24-70 its sharper then my primes. My 24-70 at 35mm is as sharp as my 35 1.4

A sample

Matthew Saville

problemchild wrote:

I can always tell when the 16-35 is used its so soft. I had 3 copies. My buddy had 6 all were soft. The edges..fogetaboutit.

Its only good 5 feet away center f8, anything lese its junk. Get the 24-70 its sharper then my primes. My 24-70 at 35mm is as sharp as my 35 1.4

A sample

It should be illlegal to post 800 pixel full images as "samples" of quality. Do you have an 800 pixel 100% crop from a corner? THEN you can compare...

-Matt-

Andy

16-35L, zeiss 21 revisited