Lens Sharpness
Sep 27, 2017 16:01:07 #
SharpShooter wrote:
That's exactly what I was looking for, THANKS! It has confirmed my decision to stay with the 2.8.
Thanks everyone for your help.
Sep 27, 2017 17:01:49 #
rydabyk wrote:
I have yet to find one comparing them stopped down, it seems that they only want to compare them wide open :(
Here's a comparison:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/ultrawide/sharpness.htm
Whether you like Ken Rockwell or not, he provides a wealth of information. In this comparison he claims that the 16-35 f/4 is the sharpest at all apertures.
Sep 27, 2017 17:09:59 #
LFingar wrote:
Here's a comparison:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/ultrawide/sharpness.htm
Whether you like Ken Rockwell or not, he provides a wealth of information. In this comparison he claims that the 16-35 f/4 is the sharpest at all apertures.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/comparisons/ultrawide/sharpness.htm
Whether you like Ken Rockwell or not, he provides a wealth of information. In this comparison he claims that the 16-35 f/4 is the sharpest at all apertures.
I regularly check his reviews, that was one of the things that got me to wondering. That and a podcast from Breakthrough Photography on long exposures. They both call the f/4 the best for landscape and long exposure. My conundrum...
Sep 27, 2017 22:35:19 #
LensTip.com does extensive lens testing. They have tested both of those lenses. I downloaded the charts from their images resolution testing. It looks like the 16-35mm f/2.8 resolves about 44 line pairs per millimeter at lens center when stopped down to f/5.6. The 16-35mm f/4 resolves about 46 line pairs per millimeter at lens center when stopped down to f/4 - f/5.6.
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens center
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens edge
Canon 16-35mm f/4L lens center
Canon 16-35mm f/4L lens edge
Sep 28, 2017 07:37:32 #
rydabyk wrote:
Not sure if this is a stupid question or not but, ... (show quote)
I have no experience with either lens, but I have come to trust reviews published by photozone.de.
These two reviews show that you are 100% correct - the F4 version is sharper at all focal lengths and very slightly sharper at F11, though the test doesn't show F16 results for the 2.8 lens, I'd guess that due to diffraction there will be even less of a difference. I don't think that the difference is worth getting the F4 if you already have the F2.8.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=1
Sep 28, 2017 07:59:24 #
CO wrote:
LensTip.com does extensive lens testing. They have tested both of those lenses. I downloaded the charts from their images resolution testing. It looks like the 16-35mm f/2.8 resolves about 44 line pairs per millimeter at lens center when stopped down to f/5.6. The 16-35mm f/4 resolves about 46 line pairs per millimeter at lens center when stopped down to f/4 - f/5.6.
THANKS!
Sep 28, 2017 08:03:32 #
Gene51 wrote:
I don't think that the difference is worth getting the F4 if you already have the F2.8.
I have an opportunity to trade with no money changing hands. Even though the f/4 is a year newer, it's a tough decision.
Sep 28, 2017 08:22:41 #
Selene03 wrote:
Thanks DSMetz, if people don't want to be helpful, they should ignore the posts. The nastiness of some people makes this website less and less useful for anyone who really needs a question answered. I am glad there are still some people here who care.
So right. Pompous and self-serving arrogance from some seem to be a path for them to compensate for their feeling of diminishing sense of self.
Sep 28, 2017 08:29:08 #
Sep 28, 2017 08:37:08 #
Sep 28, 2017 08:38:41 #
SharpShooter wrote:
r, go to, https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi... (show quote)
I checked this link, it is working for Nikon also. Thank you for the link.
Sep 28, 2017 08:50:44 #
rydabyk wrote:
I have yet to find one comparing them stopped down, it seems that they only want to compare them wide open :(
Go to photozone.de. They have comparisons at all apertures and several focal lengths. The upshot is that from f5.6 on the sharpness is basically the same for both at both center and edges.
Sep 28, 2017 08:56:11 #
In general a lens is sharper, regardless of brand, 3 stops closed from wide open. At small lens openings like f11 and f16 because of a simple optical principle they are sharper because in addition they have more depth of field. It is also an optical fact that at the small openings lenses are less sharp due to diffraction. I am not very concerned about diffraction and when I need f16 or f22 I just shoot at those apertures.
Sharpness depends a lot on the photographer. The sharpest lens in the world, if there is such a thing, will not give good results if photographic techniques are at fault. All lenses at their sweat f stop using IS or when on a tripod tend to be sharp.
Sharpness depends a lot on the photographer. The sharpest lens in the world, if there is such a thing, will not give good results if photographic techniques are at fault. All lenses at their sweat f stop using IS or when on a tripod tend to be sharp.
Sep 28, 2017 10:10:10 #
cthahn wrote:
No
rydabyk wrote:
???
Just ignore cthahn. He is a known troll who frequently posts meaningless and pointless comments.
Sep 28, 2017 10:18:32 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.