16-35II vs 24-70II IQ?

[LifeAfter]

Hello guys,

I will really appreciate your help telling me the IQ difference between EF 16-35 f2.8 II and the new 24-70 f2.8 II?

I plan to buy the 24-70 II these days and i'm really frustrated about the quality of the image from this lens.

The vignetting and distortion aren't a problem for me,
for me important is the Resolution and Focus Accuracy.

Thank you in advance for your help.

 

[LifeAfter]

I do use it a lot wide open

 

[LifeAfter]

Of course it's for a FF camera.

 

[LifeAfter]

I'm not quite happy with my 16.35 II at wide open.
It is good when focusing close to the object but on a distance
it falls down.

 

[LifeAfter]

So my question is if there is an overall IQ and AF difference?

 

[eddiemrg]

ta-daaaaaaaaaaaaan!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=114&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[7enderbender]

Hello guys,

I will really appreciate your help telling me the IQ difference between EF 16-35 f2.8 II and the new 24-70 f2.8 II?

I plan to buy the 24-70 II these days and i'm really frustrated about the quality of the image from this lens.

The vignetting and distortion aren't a problem for me,
for me important is the Resolution and Focus Accuracy.

Thank you in advance for your help.

I suspect that the 16-35 is better at 16 then the 24-70 - and the 24-70 beats the 16-35 at 70. Sorry, not trying to be a jerk here but I don't think that is a comparison that makes a lot of sense. The new 24-70 is obviously a stellar lens from what I hear and read. I find it weird though that it is made with a plastic barrel and wouldn't buy it just for that.

It seems some people complain about the 16-35's performance every now and then. I'm sure it's a great lens as well though and will deliver great results if you need that focal length. And if you are comparing only the overlap between the two I'd go for a prime such as the EF24 or maybe even better the Zeiss 21 Distagon. The latter would be my choice instead of the 16-35. For a 24-70 I would always prefer the older version over the new one even though it's not quite as sharp.

 

[Loswr]

The 24-70 II is better from 24mm up, and no good wider than 24mm. There's a place for both in a kit, and a reason both are part of the 'holy trinity' of zooms.

 

[ahsanford]

ta-daaaaaaaaaaaaan!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=114&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Love that site.

You actually linked the old Type I of the 16-35. The OP was looking for the Type II, wasn't he? The link you may want is therefore here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

And what the hey is up with the 16-35 II on that page? The 16 and 35 ends are okay, but 24 is a disaster. Balls of cotton are sharper than that -- see this one preset to 24mm on the 16-35 II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

- A

 

[wickidwombat]

ta-daaaaaaaaaaaaan!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=114&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

that link is the version 1 need to change to the mk2
and even the mk2 whats with the 24mm shot on the 16-35 its wayyyyyy off at 35mm there is not a lot of difference between the 2 I think the corners are where the 24-70 II start kicking arse

 

[ahsanford]

It's a pity that Roger at LR hasn't run 16-35 data, because he has a fair amount of 24-70 II data to compare it against.

But Photozone has both, presumably one of each lens (pan down to the middle of each page):

16-35 II: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=1

24-70 II: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=1

And you can see that fully open, the 24-70 II is slightly better in the center and markedly better in the corners. For some reason, the 16-35 II does slightly better in the 'border' area in between the center and corners.

But, for an N of 1 lens each, I wouldn't put immense stock into this. Roger from LR has found wide scatter in resolution for even the most recently released lenses.

- A

 

[pwp]

No contest really. Overall the new 24-70II outperforms the 16-35II in most respects, but you're not really comparing apples with apples.

-PW

 

[LifeAfter]

Thank you guys, i'm really conscious about comparing
two different focal range lenses and that's not comparable,

But i'ts about image IQ, it's to have an idea of what delivers
as image quality, to have an idea of what to expect comparing my 16-35 II

Thank again

 

[wayno]

Hello guys,

I will really appreciate your help telling me the IQ difference between EF 16-35 f2.8 II and the new 24-70 f2.8 II?

I plan to buy the 24-70 II these days and i'm really frustrated about the quality of the image from this lens.

The vignetting and distortion aren't a problem for me,
for me important is the Resolution and Focus Accuracy.

Thank you in advance for your help.

I suspect that the 16-35 is better at 16 then the 24-70 - and the 24-70 beats the 16-35 at 70. Sorry, not trying to be a jerk here but I don't think that is a comparison that makes a lot of sense. The new 24-70 is obviously a stellar lens from what I hear and read. I find it weird though that it is made with a plastic barrel and wouldn't buy it just for that.

It seems some people complain about the 16-35's performance every now and then. I'm sure it's a great lens as well though and will deliver great results if you need that focal length. And if you are comparing only the overlap between the two I'd go for a prime such as the EF24 or maybe even better the Zeiss 21 Distagon. The latter would be my choice instead of the 16-35. For a 24-70 I would always prefer the older version over the new one even though it's not quite as sharp.

Each to their own. I've had both 24-70s. The new one is better in virtually every respect and more practical to use.

 

[Radiating]

Hello guys,

I will really appreciate your help telling me the IQ difference between EF 16-35 f2.8 II and the new 24-70 f2.8 II?

I plan to buy the 24-70 II these days and i'm really frustrated about the quality of the image from this lens.

The vignetting and distortion aren't a problem for me,
for me important is the Resolution and Focus Accuracy.

Thank you in advance for your help.

The 24-70mm II is the best lens in your arsenal if you get a good copy, and very dissapointing if you get a bad copy.

The 16-35mm II is average, which is a nice way of saying that it's sub part in my oppinion.

So in other words:

Bad 24-70mm II < 16-35mm II < Good 24-70mm II

 

[eddiemrg]

ta-daaaaaaaaaaaaan!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=114&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

that link is the version 1 need to change to the mk2
and even the mk2 whats with the 24mm shot on the 16-35 its wayyyyyy off at 35mm there is not a lot of difference between the 2 I think the corners are where the 24-70 II start kicking arse

re-taaa-daaaaaaaaaaaaan!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[RS2021]

If we want to talk distortion, then 16-35II has the least distortion at 24mm, even when compared to the 24L II in my hands. But the 24L II of course is sharper and contrasty even at f/2... and marginally so at f/1.4...it is a prime after all. From what I see on photozone, the new 24-70II still has some distortion at 24mm though clearly this is not the only thing to consider in a zoom. It looks highly desirable otherise.

As the distortion of 24-105L on the wider end seems to be a frequently cited negative against this zoom, for lower focal length range of the 24-105L, say at 24mm, switching to 16-35II is one solution.

My 24-105L usually hangs in the 50+mm focal range so this is a not a big issue for me. I would rather keep the IS.

 

[brattymesler]

I posted this on another thread (for the 6D), but here's a 100% crop from the 24-70II at 70mm at f/2.8. This photo was taken from 1.2 miles away. I think it speaks volumes about the IQ of the 24-70II.

 

[brattymesler]

also: here's a sample at 24mm f/2.8. Ignore the things that look like dust spots, I was shoot through a cloud of gnats.

 

[Dylan777]

Thank you guys, i'm really conscious about comparing
two different focal range lenses and that's not comparable,

But i'ts about image IQ, it's to have an idea of what delivers
as image quality, to have an idea of what to expect comparing my 16-35 II

Thank again

As an owner of 16-35 II and 24-70 f2.8 II, the IQ of 24-70 is OUT perform 16-35 II in almost every f-stops, esp. at wide open - sharper and better contrast. PERIOD

+1 with PWP "you're not really comparing apples with apples"

Shot below @ f2.8 with 24-70 f2.8 II on 5D III