Finite Question

[Mitsubishiman]

I have several Canon Lenses; recently I noticed something I cannot explain due to my limitations of immediate knowledge base.

I am shooting with a Canon 5DSR, I have been utilizing specifically Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM.

On two occasions I needed a wider lens, so I utilized a Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

The part that has me a little baffled is although the 24-70 is and should be considered superior to the 16-35, the 16-35 is producing what appears to be remarkably better photos.

On the two cases where it appeared to be better the focal length is under the 24mm setting, one at 16mm and one at 18mm.

So I would appreciate someone with a far more technical savvy than myself to for lack of a better term tell me if the “Sweet Spot” on a Canon 5DSr is under the 24mm focal length.

If so perhaps I should be looking into a different lens than the 24-70?

The newer 16-35 or another wider angle lens?

And for the record, I have taken several exceptional photos with the 24-70, however the 16-35 appears to have a slight edge over it.

The photographs were shot in RAW and processed in Lightroom, as well as the majority of the last two years of my submissions to 500px

Here are the 2 photos

https://500px.com/photo/163489075/root-river-falls-by-paul-herold?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=95855...

https://500px.com/photo/157179335/malanaphy-springs-june-4-2016-by-paul-herold?ctx_page=1&from=user&...

[RobertTheFat]

I must be missing something. The two pictures you posted both say they were taken with the 16-35mm f/4L. I see nothing wrong with either one. (I don't care for the fuzzy waterfalls, but that's a stylistic choice, not a lens or camera problem.) I have that lens and have found its performance to be excellent. And I'm not aware that there's a newer 16-35.

So what, exactly, are we supposed to be looking for?

OK, I see now that both postings are of two pictures, each taken with one of the two lenses. I guess the B&W one isn't quite as sharp as the others, but it seems to say that its exposure was a full second. If so, maybe the problem is an unsteady tripod.

[Mitsubishiman]

There is a newer 16-35

I have this model

[link removed per forum guidelines]

This is the newer one

[link removed per forum guidelines]

The question is: is the "Sweet Spot" a consideration, the two examples are the ones that have a focal length below 24mm

The two examples are just the ones from 500px that were both taken with the 16-35, they are at focal lengths below 24mm and in the type of photography I am looking for the reults have been noticably better.

Perhaps it is the settings, however I typically shoot my longer exposures at the same settings with both lenses.

Both were utilizing a Manfroto 190 tripod, which I reccomend because of the stability, and although I have been chastised for it, I prefer darker photograhy, just my choice.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Mitsubishiman wrote:

There is a newer 16-35

I have this model

[link removed per forum guidelines]

This is the newer one

[link removed per forum guidelines]

---

The second of those is an f/2.8, not an f/4. And I think, although I'm not entirely certain, that the f/4 is newer, by a few months.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Mitsubishiman wrote:

There is a newer 16-35

I have this model

[link removed per forum guidelines]

This is the newer one

[link removed per forum guidelines]

---

Are you guys quite serious? Those were links to Canon products on the Web site of one of your largest and most highly regarded authorized resellers. Forgive me for stating the obvious; but if posting them was a violation of forum guidelines, then maybe the forum guidelines need changing.

And if the idea is that the poster should have instead referred to those items on Canon's own Web site, believe me when I tell you that it is now much easier to find such items on that reseller's site than on the Canon site.

[Waddizzle]

"Are you guys quite serious?" 

Well, at least they're consistent.  No links to anything that is "for sale". 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

"Are you guys quite serious?" 

Well, at least they're consistent.  No links to anything that is "for sale". 

---

Since you can buy items directly from Canon (or could the last time I looked), that rule would forbid posting a link to those lenses on their own site.

[ebiggs1]

B from B,

I suppose that part of the removal was to not show favoritism. One retailer over another thingy.  I can totally understand that.  Even if the two letter named store is the largest retailer of Canon gear!  If I were the stores competition I would complain to Canon.

Not linking to their own web store is ridiculous, of course they have every right to do that.  This is Canon's forum after all.

[TTMartin]

---

@Mitsubishiman wrote:

I have several Canon Lenses; recently I noticed something I cannot explain due to my limitations of immediate knowledge base.

I am shooting with a Canon 5DSR, I have been utilizing specifically Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM.

On two occasions I needed a wider lens, so I utilized a Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

The part that has me a little baffled is although the 24-70 is and should be considered superior to the 16-35, the 16-35 is producing what appears to be remarkably better photos.

On the two cases where it appeared to be better the focal length is under the 24mm setting, one at 16mm and one at 18mm.

So I would appreciate someone with a far more technical savvy than myself to for lack of a better term tell me if the “Sweet Spot” on a Canon 5DSr is under the 24mm focal length.

If so perhaps I should be looking into a different lens than the 24-70?

The newer 16-35 or another wider angle lens?

And for the record, I have taken several exceptional photos with the 24-70, however the 16-35 appears to have a slight edge over it.

The photographs were shot in RAW and processed in Lightroom, as well as the majority of the last two years of my submissions to 500px

Here are the 2 photos

https://500px.com/photo/163489075/root-river-falls-by-paul-herold?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=95855...

https://500px.com/photo/157179335/malanaphy-springs-june-4-2016-by-paul-herold?ctx_page=1&from=user&...

---

With both lenses wide open the EF 16-35 f/4L has a slight advantage in image quality. Shoot both lenses at f/4 and the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II will have a slight advantage in the corners.

[ebiggs1]

Once you go throug post processing it becomes difficult to tell which lens is better.  My experience with both lenses is the ef 24-70mm f2.8L USM II is the superior lens. And by a goodly degree.  But both lenses are extremely good.  But it does not mean at a specific focal length one is not better than the other.

I finally sold my ef 17-40mm f4L which some of my friends tell me was a mistake as they claim it has better IQ than the 16-35.  If it did or does it is very slight. Which brings up the question, if you must go to that finite degree to try and decide which lens is the best, is that really necessary. All three of these lenses are great.

IMHO, the ef 24-70mm f2.8L USM II is the best zoom lens made.  A person that owns a 5Ds or 5Dsr needs to be aware that lenses are a real challenge if the best results are wanted.  A camera with that resolution ability requires the best of the best.

You may want to look in to some Canon ef prime lenses.  Examples are the new ef 35mm f/1.4L II, the 50mm f1.2L and the ef 85mm f1.2L plus some others.

Advice, when you compare shots do the RAW conversion and lens correction.  That's all.  Now you can compare them one on one.