- Messages
- 1,100
- Edit My Images
- No
Before I start, two things. Firstly, this isn't a proper in-depth review because I don't have the experience to write such a review. This is just from a newbie's perspective. Secondly, by 'kit lens' I'm referring to the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6.
I'm going to begin with the most important point for me - sharpness. Frankly, I couldn't see any difference. Sorry if that's photographic blasphemy but I really couldn't tell that the 16-35mm was any sharper. Certainly not nine hundred-odd quid sharper, anyhow.
Here are two straight comparison shots. Both are 100% crops and taken straight from the RAW file with no processing. I set up the 20D on a tripod with the 16-35mm attached. Framed the shot. Autofocused. Set the aperture and shutter speed manually. Took the shot in self-timer mode. Changed the lenses. Autofocused again and took the second shot. The camera wasn't moved and the settings weren't changed between shots.
18-55mm @ 24mm, f/8, 1/80s, ISO 100:
16-35mm @ 24mm, f/8, 1/80s, ISO 100:
If I'm missing something please point it out but those two look hardly any different to me apart from a bit of difference in the distortion. But the sharpness seems to be remarkably similar.
Right... That's the most striking thing (from my perspective) out the way. Now for some pros and cons of the 16-35mm.
Pros
Wide (f/2.8) aperture is really handy. You can stay in ISO 100 even when it's cloudy.
Focusing is whisper-quiet and very fast indeed.
Static front end is great for polarisers (not that I had a 77mm one handy, but still).
Weather protection means it's nice not to have to worry about your lens when it starts spitting.
Cons
The price - even on onestop-digital it's £750.
It weighs a tonne.
Distortion is quite severe at the 16mm end but I guess that's to be expected.
And, of course, as I said above... I can't see that it's any sharper. But that's IMO, I grant you.
In summary, I think if I was going to invest in an L-series zoom lens I would be prepared to pay the extra for one that had a maximum aperture of f/2.8. I did find it very handy and I could easily see myself getting used to having the increased speed available. But while that would sway me to choose this over the 17-40mm f/4L, I still can't believe that I wasn't able to notice any extra sharpness when comapring an L-series with the kit lens.
Maybe it's a zoom/prime thing rather than an L/cheapie thing but I guess I was expecting something quite noticeable. Or maybe it's just me being a newbie. Either way I'm not likely to invest in anything with an 'L' in the name for a little while yet. Which is good news for my bank balance, but maybe bad news for my eyes because I'm beginning to think they must be broken, the way everyone raves about L glass.
I'm going to begin with the most important point for me - sharpness. Frankly, I couldn't see any difference. Sorry if that's photographic blasphemy but I really couldn't tell that the 16-35mm was any sharper. Certainly not nine hundred-odd quid sharper, anyhow.
Here are two straight comparison shots. Both are 100% crops and taken straight from the RAW file with no processing. I set up the 20D on a tripod with the 16-35mm attached. Framed the shot. Autofocused. Set the aperture and shutter speed manually. Took the shot in self-timer mode. Changed the lenses. Autofocused again and took the second shot. The camera wasn't moved and the settings weren't changed between shots.
18-55mm @ 24mm, f/8, 1/80s, ISO 100:
16-35mm @ 24mm, f/8, 1/80s, ISO 100:
If I'm missing something please point it out but those two look hardly any different to me apart from a bit of difference in the distortion. But the sharpness seems to be remarkably similar.
Right... That's the most striking thing (from my perspective) out the way. Now for some pros and cons of the 16-35mm.
Pros
Wide (f/2.8) aperture is really handy. You can stay in ISO 100 even when it's cloudy.
Focusing is whisper-quiet and very fast indeed.
Static front end is great for polarisers (not that I had a 77mm one handy, but still).
Weather protection means it's nice not to have to worry about your lens when it starts spitting.
Cons
The price - even on onestop-digital it's £750.
It weighs a tonne.
Distortion is quite severe at the 16mm end but I guess that's to be expected.
And, of course, as I said above... I can't see that it's any sharper. But that's IMO, I grant you.
In summary, I think if I was going to invest in an L-series zoom lens I would be prepared to pay the extra for one that had a maximum aperture of f/2.8. I did find it very handy and I could easily see myself getting used to having the increased speed available. But while that would sway me to choose this over the 17-40mm f/4L, I still can't believe that I wasn't able to notice any extra sharpness when comapring an L-series with the kit lens.
Maybe it's a zoom/prime thing rather than an L/cheapie thing but I guess I was expecting something quite noticeable. Or maybe it's just me being a newbie. Either way I'm not likely to invest in anything with an 'L' in the name for a little while yet. Which is good news for my bank balance, but maybe bad news for my eyes because I'm beginning to think they must be broken, the way everyone raves about L glass.