16-35/2.8 L (first version) issue

[Snzkgb]

Hi everyone!
I've bought used 16-35 L and I have issue with it - the lower left corner of the images with that glass is very blurry, you can see the problem in attached pic.
All glass is in excellent condition, no scratches or anything like that, AF works fine.
Could it be some optical axis problems?
I'm going to take this lens to canon service anyway.

 

[pwp]

Ever wondered why there always seem to be plenty of second hand 16-35 f/2.8L MkI lenses for sale? Sorry to have to tell you, but most copies of the original 16-35 f/2.8L are far from perfect. Hope you got it cheap. Even the MkII only delivered the occasional sweet copy. Photographers across the planet have their fingers crossed that the just announced MkIII will finally deliver the goods. FWIW over time I had three MkI 16-35's, 2 MkII's both of which I was reluctant to use for important commercial projects.

I finally gave away a stop and picked up the almost faultless 16-35 f/4is. This is a truly great value lens. But the MkI? Bleeeh! Sell it again before you spend any money on it would be my advice. CPS never "fixed" any of mine.

-pw

 

[privatebydesign]

For f/5.6 from a MkI you aren't going to get much better than that. Yes the left side is a little softer than the right, but I'd say the right is above average and the left average.

I'd get a price from Canon before spending money on it, as pep says the 16-35 f4 L IS is a vastly better lens in every respect.

 

[Snzkgb]

Ever wondered why there always seem to be plenty of second hand 16-35 f/2.8L MkI lenses for sale? Sorry to have to tell you, but most copies of the original 16-35 f/2.8L are far from perfect. Hope you got it cheap. Even the MkII only delivered the occasional sweet copy. Photographers across the planet have their fingers crossed that the just announced MkIII will finally deliver the goods. FWIW over time I had three MkI 16-35's, 2 MkII's both of which I was reluctant to use for important commercial projects.

I finally gave away a stop and picked up the almost faultless 16-35 f/4is. This is a truly great value lens. But the MkI? Bleeeh! Sell it again before you spend any money on it would be my advice. CPS never "fixed" any of mine.

-pw

So, if I understand you correctly, this is a normal lens behaviour for 16-35L? I'm a little disappointed to hear this...Well, I knew that 16-35L is not the Cannon's best lens, but I didn't imagine just how bad it could be.

 

[Snzkgb]

For f/5.6 from a MkI you aren't going to get much better than that. Yes the left side is a little softer than the right, but I'd say the right is above average and the left average.

I'd get a price from Canon before spending money on it, as pep says the 16-35 f4 L IS is a vastly better lens in every respect.

I've got 17-40L some years ago, and it was much sharper than 16-35L. I've bought 16-35L because of it 2.8 aperture.

 

[rs]

I finally gave away a stop and picked up the almost faultless 16-35 f/4is. This is a truly great value lens. But the MkI? Bleeeh! Sell it again before you spend any money on it would be my advice. CPS never "fixed" any of mine.

-pw

+1

If you want a lens which can cover that range with superb optical quality now, other than the slow aperture the 16-35/4 L is in my opinion faultless. Optically I'd put it in the same bracket as the 24-70 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II.

It looks like the 16-35/2.8 III will be in the same ball park, so if you need 2.8, can wait, and you pockets are deep enough, that could be worth considering.

 

[Viggo]

Usually this behavior is a de-centered lens. Which is exactly what it sounds like, one or some or all elements sits crooked in the barrel.

I would only send it in under warranty, on an old lens like this it might cost more than you want to spend on it.

 

[privatebydesign]

I agree there is an amount of decentering to an element or group, but having used the 16-35 f2.8 MkI extensively it doesn't look like a bad one to me.

The cost of having it aligned will fall under the 'fixed price servicing' if you are in the USA, this normally runs around $200 for this lens and will be plus any parts needed. The repair comes with a six month warranty, again, in the USA.

 

[Snzkgb]

Usually this behavior is a de-centered lens. Which is exactly what it sounds like, one or some or all elements sits crooked in the barrel.

I would only send it in under warranty, on an old lens like this it might cost more than you want to spend on it.

It is used, so no warranty, of course.
I still hope I won't pay to much for a repair.

 

[Snzkgb]

I agree there is an amount of decentering to an element or group, but having used the 16-35 f2.8 MkI extensively it doesn't look like a bad one to me.

The cost of having it aligned will fall under the 'fixed price servicing' if you are in the USA, this normally runs around $200 for this lens and will be plus any parts needed. The repair comes with a six month warranty, again, in the USA.

200$ for repair seems ok for me, but I live in Russia

 

[Murdy]

Looks like a normal 16-35 image. It's got a lot of chromatic abberation that needs sorting out!

 

[Snzkgb]

Looks like a normal 16-35 image. It's got a lot of chromatic abberation that needs sorting out!

I'm pretty sure this is not normal for an L lens to be such an unsharp lens at 5.6

 

[Deleted member 7828]

The de-centering is an issue (the right being sharper than the left), but even if it were fixed I don't think you'll see much of an improvement in overall corner sharpness I'm afraid. I had version II of the 16-35 2.8 and was never really happy with it for this same reason.

You can get them to look at it and quote you a price, then you can decide if it's worth it to have it fixed.

 

[Snzkgb]

The de-centering is an issue (the right being sharper than the left), but even if it were fixed I don't think you'll see much of an improvement in overall corner sharpness I'm afraid. I had version II of the 16-35 2.8 and was never really happy with it for this same reason.

You can get them to look at it and quote you a price, then you can decide if it's worth it to have it fixed.

Well, I'm ok with what I see to the right of the image, it is decent as for me. If left side would be just as sharp, than I'm okay with the price of the fixing, if it won't be half the price of the lens, which I've got only for 615$.

 

[Snzkgb]

So today I've got my lens back. I was told that my 16-35L was checked on canon machinery and that it turned out to be a good one, and there is nothing to repair there.

I'm disappointed, of course. Seems that Canon is (or at least was) bad at making wide-angle lenses, because I have no questions about 24-70/2.8 L or 70-200/2.8 L.

 

[Viggo]

Wow! They actually said that was "a good one", I wouldn't accept that answer. Send them a bunch of images again showing the issue and make them do something.