Lens Sharpness: Not sure if this is a stupid question or not but, I was wondering about the corner and/or edge sharpness of 2 Canon Lens. The 16-35 f/4 L vs. the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II...

rydabyk Loc: Florida Panhandle

Not sure if this is a stupid question or not but, I was wondering about the corner and/or edge sharpness of 2 Canon Lens. The 16-35 f/4 L vs. the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II at f/8 to around f/16. I know the f/4 is way sharper wide open vs the f/2.8 but not so sure about smaller apertures. I'm looking mainly for landscape work. I already own the f/2.8 and I'm pretty pleased but from what I've been able to see, the f/4 is way sharper at the edges. I know that landscapes are not normally shot wide open but was wondering if the differences carried through to the smaller apertures.
I hope that makes sense.
Thanks!

Selene03

I haven't used the 2.8 II version of this lens, but the 16-35 F4 hasn't disappointed me at any Fstop or focal length. It is a really terrific light and inexpensive lens for what it offers.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

why talk of wide open for landscapes?? I would shoot from f5.6-f8.

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

bull drink water wrote:

why talk of wide open for landscapes?? I would shoot from f5.6-f8.

Your question tells me you either didn't fully read and/or fully understand the OP's question.

rydabyk Loc: Florida Panhandle

bull drink water wrote:

why talk of wide open for landscapes?? I would shoot from f5.6-f8.

The only reason I mentioned wide open was that I was aware of the difference in sharpness there and wondering if it carried through to the smaller apertures. I tend to stay around f/8-f/12 or smaller for long exposure and when I want more prominent sunstars.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

rydabyk wrote:

Not sure if this is a stupid question or not but, ... (show quote)

There are a dozen or more direct comparisons of these lenses on the internet and at least several YouTube videos. Have you researched them? I'm guessing one or more of them must discuss how these lenses compare when stopped down.

rydabyk Loc: Florida Panhandle

mwsilvers wrote:

There are a dozen or more direct comparisons of these lenses on the internet and at least several YouTube videos. Have you researched them? I'm guessing one or more of them must discuss how these lenses compare when stopped down.

I have yet to find one comparing them stopped down, it seems that they only want to compare them wide open :(

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

I use small apertures for landscapes, cityscapes, and any other scapes, and I never heard of a lens that was weak at the edges at small apertures (even bargain brands). Any Canon L lens ought to be good enough for anybody. The justification that some softening at the edges is all right with some fast lenses is that the large, fast aperture is generally used where the subject is in the center and the edges don't matter--portraits, sports, animals, people in the news, candid shots in dim light.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

rydabyk wrote:

I have yet to find one comparing them stopped down, it seems that they only want to compare them wide open :(

r, go to, https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
He test Canon equipment. He's the best Canon tester in the business.
In this module you can enter in ANY parameters you want and directly VIEW the differences between to different lenses!
You can also read his review for each lens. His reviews are extremely accurate.
Now STOP whining!!! LoL......, just KIDDING!!!
Have fun
SS

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Charles 46277 wrote:

I use small apertures for landscapes, cityscapes, and any other scapes, and I never heard of a lens that was weak at the edges at small apertures (even bargain brands). Any Canon L lens ought to be good enough for anybody. The justification that some softening at the edges is all right with some fast lenses is that the large, fast aperture is generally used where the subject is in the center and the edges don't matter--portraits, sports, animals, people in the news, candid shots in dim light.

Not to mention that with large apertures the edges are where the greatest DoF is concentrated, so the edges are pretty much COMPLETELY blurred out and can't be seen!!!

SS

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

mwsilvers wrote:

There are a dozen or more direct comparisons of these lenses on the internet and at least several YouTube videos. Have you researched them? I'm guessing one or more of them must discuss how these lenses compare when stopped down.

The alternative to looking up generalized info on google is to find people with significant interest in the field of interest and ask them.

Now where could the OP find people interested in photography and lens performance in particular with a wide breadth of experience using various camera and lens combinations who might just know something about his specific question???

Anyone here that can think of a place? Obviously mwsilvers does not think UHH is a place where photographers come to share knowledge and seek answers from knowledgeable people..

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Selene03

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.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

SharpShooter wrote:

Not to mention that with large apertures the edges are where the greatest DoF is concentrated, so the edges are pretty much COMPLETELY blurred out and can't be seen!!!

SS

Not sure what you mean, Sharpshooter--are you saying large apertures render the edges very out-of-focus in (say) portraits both because they are behind the plane of focus, and because this is exaggerated by large apertures?

I think the original question may have assumed landscapes use small apertures, but asked if the soft edge sharpness changes when stopped down. It usually does--it gets better.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Charles 46277 wrote:

Not sure what you mean, Sharpshooter--are you saying large apertures render the edges very out-of-focus in (say) portraits both because they are behind the plane of focus, and because this is exaggerated by large apertures?

I think the original question may have assumed landscapes use small apertures, but asked if the soft edge sharpness changes when stopped down. It usually does--it gets better.

Charles, you're right, the original question was about landscape and small apertures. I provided the OP with a site that will very accurately show him what he was asking.
I WAS referring here to your statement about shooting portraits wide open, and yes, generally the edges in those situations are in front of or behind the plain of focus, thus outside of the DoF, which is more often than not a goal, not a handicap.
I think we were saying the same thing!!
SS