[fingerz]

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.

[stepheno]

Enjoyed reading the write up Jamie. If anything, on my monitor, I think the 16-35 just has an edge on sharpness. However, I would agree that 750-900 oncers is a lot mullah for a little difference.

regards

[IanC_UK]

Are these 100% crops Jamey ?

To me the 16-35 is definitely better, brighter, sharper better definition whether its 900 quid better is another thing altogether though !

[Garnock]

Fingerz, I'm not going to argue with you on value for money.
The kit lens is exactly that, value for money.

With the 20D crop factor and shooting at f8 the kit lens puts up a good show against the 16-35. But these two lenses were developed for different types of cameras. Most lenses will perform well at f8 and at the center of the frame ( i.e. your 100% crop). Where the money comes into it is wide open and at the edge of the frame. Bear in mind the 16-35 will perform well on a full frame camera as well as a 1.6 crop.

As a balance ( and in fairness to the 16-35 ) can we see a 100% crop of the corners with the lens wide open ?

Cameron

[fingerz]

Originally Posted by stepheno

Enjoyed reading the write up Jamie. If anything, on my monitor, I think the 16-35 just has an edge on sharpness. However, I would agree that 750-900 oncers is a lot mullah for a little difference.

regards

Oh yeah... Don't get me wrong. I can see a tiny bit of difference here too. But make no mistake, it is tiny. I enjoyed using the lens but I shan't be investing until I know enough to work out why I can't see much difference.

On that day, hopefully, I'll look back and laugh at my primitive comparison test and wonder how I could've been so naive. But for now I'll save the money.

Edit - Garnock... Those crops are actually from an area near the bottom left of the picture. But I'll do some wide open and corner-cropped in a bit (about to eat). They'll be indoor shots though so not sure what I'll shoot. Might have to be my record collection or something.

[Garnock]

Originally Posted by fingerz

Edit - Garnock... Those crops are actually from an area near the bottom left of the picture. But I'll do some wide open and corner-cropped in a bit (about to eat). They'll be indoor shots though so not sure what I'll shoot. Might have to be my record collection or something.

Some Led Zeppelin would be nice. :coat:

Cameron

[fingerz]

Right, these are all 100% crops taken from the bottom right corner of the frame. I know they're not totally identical frame-wise. I think it's because it's hard to get the focal length exactly the same. Also when dealing with corners of an image I guess the distortion thing comes into effect. Anyway here you go. I've included the 16-35mm at both f/3.5 and f/2.8 as I didn't know whether you wanted a like-for-like comparison or a properly wide open comparison so I did both.


18-55mm @ 24mm, f/3.5:



16-35mm @24mm, f/3.5:



16-35mm @24mm, f/2.8:



I think the f/2.8 one looks slightly brighter just because I was changing shutter speeds to compensate for the shots at different apertures and I must've gone a click too far or something.

[CT]

Don't forget that if you shoot in RAW, no sharpening is applied in processing anyway. It's also generally agreed that the 20D tends to produce images out of the camera a tad on the soft side, so to properly compare the two lenses you'd need to process for optimum sharpening of images from both lenses to make a fair comparison - the resolving power of the lens is there with digital, but just needs bringing out in processing.

[Garnock]

Is it me or does the 16-35 f2.8 image look sharper than the 16-35 f3.5 ?

I know they are on the same focal plane but if anything it should be the otherway around.

[fingerz]

Originally Posted by CT

...to properly compare the two lenses you'd need to process for optimum sharpening...

Ok, this probably isn't what you meant but I re-did the two shots of the house and this time I gave the images an unsharp mask using exactly the same settings for both pics. It begins to become more apparent that the 16-35 is sharper. It's not a small difference but it's not a huge one either. And bear in mind we're looking at a 100% crop and talking about a good £700 price difference at least.


18-55:



16-35:

[CT]

That's a better test by far Jamey. I see a huge difference there now mate to be honest. You'd really see the difference in making large prints from the two lenses, much more so than viewing the pics on a monitor. The other thing is that the image contrast in the dearer lens is miles better, no doubt due to superior glass and better lens coatings. Just look at the difference in the visble shadow detail on the right of the shots!

It's a lot of dosh I know, but you really do get what you pay for where lenses are concerned. You just have to decide if you can justify the price based on your anticipated use of the lens. Given your leanings towards street photography, I would have thought you'd use it a lot?

It's not a race mate - wait till you can afford it, but don't be tempted into a cheaper alternative just because it's more affordable, that way lies long term regret.

[fingerz]

I'm pretty sure I would use it a lot, yeah. Not least for the added freedom of having f/2.8 handy. But given my preference for sharpness I think I should probably test a L-series prime at some point. Or even a midrange prime (how different are midrange primes to L-series ones?). I'd rather walk backwards and forwards and have the extra sharpness, the benefit of f/2.8 and save money at the same time.

Am I right in thinking that on a sliding scale, with 1 being the sharpest, it goes roughly like this:

1) L-series primes
2) Midrange primes (eg EF 100mm f/2.8 macro)
3) L-series zooms
4) Cheap primes (eg 50mm f/1.8 Mk II)
5) Midrange zooms
6) Cheap zooms

Or am I mistaken?

[CT]

Yep - that's about the right pecking order - theoretically at least. You can always get a poor specimen however much you spend, but all things being equal, that's the order of what you should expect from a lens depending on what you go for. I'd just point out though than an L series zoom could well out-perform a mid range prime.

17-40L? A proven excellent razor sharp lens - and a lot more affordable.

[Dave]

Performed a similar experiment between Nikon 18-70mm kit lens & the 50mm f/1.8 lens. Results here at f/5.6 & pure crop shots from original with no post processing.


As written elsewhere I moved to Nikon D70 due to better kit lens than on the Canon 300D at time. The above shots show just how good the 50mm f/1.8 lens really is for sharpness

[fingerz]

That seems more noticeable. Gonna do a test with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 vs kit lens at some point. Will post the results.