saltwaterphil Loc: va beach, va

Anybody using this lens/ What do you think? Bought one used and it seems a little soft, maybe it's just me.

Camlane Loc: North Carolina

They have a soft reputation which was supposedly cured in the III.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Take pictures at various f/stops and see where the sweet spot is. You usually need to shoot at f/4 or f/5.6 and not wide open for the sharpest images. If you are shooting long exposure star photos, the sharpness isn't as critical. You'll be using noise reduction and sharpening in post. I'd suggest getting used to shooting raw and using sharpening in post all the time. So even if the 16-35 is a little on the soft side, it's usually improved a lot in post. I've heard the same about the new 16-35 Mark III. (that it's really sharp). But at almost $2k it's not in the budget now.

saltwaterphil Loc: va beach, va

Yep that's what I'm doing. Guess I should have gone for the F4 version, I know that's sharp, but just wanted a low light capability.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

It's still the go to lens for milky way stars.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Your fine just between f8 - 5.6 until you find the sweet spot these Lens act different with each camera, a little more practice on your part is all you need!

Brent Rowlett Loc: Atlanta, GA

I shoot real estate professionally. This is an outstanding lens and really the most wide angle lens one should use before barreling interiors with fish eye lenses. I use f-11 and shoot HDR-- 4 bracketed images of every view. Also this is THE favorite lens of the wedding photographer. There is no other lens that will allow you to shoot in confined spaces in rooms-none.

Check your image setting within your camera...standard, portrait, landscape etc. Landscape will give you the sharpest image out of the camera. All the comment about softness is just a bunch of bull roar. Great Lens and I have been using the original version for the past 10 years--5 days a week.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

Thanks Brent for separating the fluff from the chaff. Excellent Real Estate images! I would buy that house just from your pictures.

bweber Loc: Newton, MA

I bought the same lens as a used lens and I am very happy with it. Here is an example:

Brent Rowlett Loc: Atlanta, GA

I have nearly every lens offered except for the very expensive lenses in excess of 300mm. The lenses I use the most are the 16-35mm for all indoor work and landscape, 24-70mm all purpose lens, and the 100mm macro for high end jewelry photography.

Here is an image I have sold many times over taken with the original 16-35mm. This lens paid for itself on the first metal print sale. I love this lens, made a lot of money with it, and see no reason for the hype to graduate up to version II and III. If you ever plan to shoot weddings and interior events, you will thank your stars you purchased this lens.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Thumbs up for your excellent work!

I prefer the 11-24L f4 for sharpness and the ability to make small spaces look large... but for size, weight and cost I have kept the old 16-35L f 2.8II and actually believe it is one of my sharper lenses.

I truly believe lenses are often tested on the internet shot strait out of the box without any attempt at micro adjusting first.

You did prove a great point and thanks for sharing ;)

Brent Rowlett Loc: Atlanta, GA

The only time I worry about absolute tack sharp quality is with portraits, and for that I use the dedicated portrait tank of a lens, the 85mm f-1.2. to get the eyes, iris, and eyelashes absolutely sharp. From there most lenses are self defeating because I really do not want to capture every pore, blackhead, and zit on the face of my clients. The 85 will capture the veins in the eyes (which have to be edited out). Portraiture software takes away the sharpness in most areas.

With the Canon 5DSr, producing 24 x 36 images out of the camera, I find that lenses that are of good quality actually increase my edit time. The 100mm f-2.8 macro is so sharp that I capture dust, filing marks made with facet cutting grinders, fuzz and scratches which all have to be edited out. If you have printing industry experience you know that your images are dumbed down anyway by presses that cannot print your image with multiple printing plates in perfect register with good ink density control. Far more important than tack sharp quality is good contrast within the image. And if you do not know what contrast is and why it is so important, it would be good to read up on that topic. That is the difference between an image that prints blah-ho hum, and an image that pops off the page regardless of focus quality.

I tell all beginning photographers to purchase good glass, an adequate camera body, and most important, learn to light your subject matter for shape and contrast. A photo that will print well separates the pros from the pack.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Excellent post!

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

I've been shooting mine for 10 years and I really like it. Mine is pretty sharp!

saltwaterphil Loc: va beach, va

Thanks for all the feed back. I too would buy that house, beautiful home, would love to see the plans. I'm in the process of downsizing.