Thanks guys for the comment.. Actually the first shot was from the L lens, i was trying hard to make myself think it should to be sharper, but honestly i think the 17-85 was sharper. Maybe i have a very good copy of the 17-85 and a not so good 16-35. Although, peripheral sharpness, the L lens was definitely better. By the way, both were at 35mm.
most L zooms aren't as sharp as L primes or even most consumer primes, but as to whether you can tell the difference or not... I think it depends on the subject, and how much of a sharponaut you are.
Some L zooms are definitely worse than others. The 35-350 and 28-300 L superzooms are by far the worst, but there are others that aren't exactly great (17-35 L for example).
Hey guys... question... on my 10D, it's all of a sudden shooting in 3072 x 2040. WHAT THE I only noticed it now and lost maybe 8 pixels or so. Why (I got a feeling it's C1 Pro 3.6 that is my problem)
SmellyTofu wrote:
Hey guys... question... on my 10D, it's all of a sudden shooting in 3072 x 2040. WHAT THE I only noticed it now and lost maybe 8 pixels or so. Why (I got a feeling it's C1 Pro 3.6 that is my problem)
If that's the case, you've actually lost 24,576 pixels (8*3072). Don't you usually shoot jpg? what does photoshop say?
I've never heard of this happening. The camera shouldn't be able to map out pixels by itself, let alone whole columns.
SmellyTofu wrote:
Btw, Ed, the shot of Melissa is good!!!
Thanks
Ed, i also like the shots of melissa, she was there earlier this year at night as well, i had my camera but no flash at the time, so didn't take any of her then.
Smelly, the model shots were good, how did u correct the WB? would u shoot a grey card at the location?
rwwlee wrote:
Thanks guys for the comment.. Actually the first shot was from the L lens, i was trying hard to make myself think it should to be sharper, but honestly i think the 17-85 was sharper. Maybe i have a very good copy of the 17-85 and a not so good 16-35. Although, peripheral sharpness, the L lens was definitely better. By the way, both were at 35mm.
Is this as sharp as most L lens will be?
haha...I fully understand your concern Richard. Having spent so much money on an L lens, you expected it to be the best in the world. I guess sharpness is not the only thing which the 16-35L offers you. Think outside sharpness and you will be happier. But to answer you question, I rate the following zooms in terms of sharpness:
70-200(both 2.8IS and f4) > 100-400 >24-70>10-22=17-40>16-35>17-85=28-135
(Please accept this as my rough estimate and feeling from my experience with these lenses, no proper tests have been done, nor have they been compared at equal setting/focal length)
I only noticed it now and lost maybe 8 pixels or so. Why
