# 16-35II vs 24-70II IQ?



## LifeAfter (Mar 11, 2013)

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 (Mar 11, 2013)

I do use it a lot wide open


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 11, 2013)

Of course it's for a FF camera.


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 11, 2013)

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 (Mar 11, 2013)

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


----------



## eddiemrg (Mar 11, 2013)

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 (Mar 11, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> 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 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 11, 2013)

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 (Mar 11, 2013)

eddiemrg said:


> 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 (Mar 11, 2013)

eddiemrg said:


> 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 (Mar 11, 2013)

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 (Mar 12, 2013)

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 (Mar 12, 2013)

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 (Mar 12, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > Hello guys,
> ...



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 (Mar 12, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 12, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> eddiemrg said:
> 
> 
> > ta-daaaaaaaaaaaaan!
> ...



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 (Mar 13, 2013)

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 (Mar 13, 2013)

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 (Mar 13, 2013)

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 (Mar 15, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> 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 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


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 16, 2013)

What Dylan said...

I really didn't care for the IQ of my 16-35 F/2.8 II and sold it to fund the 24-70 F/2.8 II.

Once I got the 24-70 II F/2.8 II in mu hands, I tested the 24 F/1.4 II that I had against it.
My 24-70 was sharper @ F/2.8 upwards than the prime, which left me with a prime that vignettes badly @ F/1.4 is usable at F/2 and not as good onwards.
I sold the 24 F/1.4 II the next day.

I've also had 2 copies of the new Sigma 35mm F/1.4 and neither of them could out resolve the 24-70 @ F/2.8.

I sold all my Canon lenses except the 70-200 F/2.8 II and the 24-70 F/2.8 II.
Both are excellent and nothing much in the Canon mount comes close.
I'll wait for the new Canon UW (12 - 24 or 14 - 24) to get the third part of the trinity.

ET


----------



## AudioGlenn (Mar 16, 2013)

EvilTed said:


> What Dylan said...
> 
> I really didn't care for the IQ of my 16-35 F/2.8 II and sold it to fund the 24-70 F/2.8 II.
> 
> ...



nice to hear i'm not the only one who did something like this. Although I still keep my 35L for when I really need the low light capabilities or for shooting video. I too am waiting for a new awesome UWA. In the meantime, I'm having lots of fun with the 8-15mm fisheye!


----------



## wayno (Mar 16, 2013)

AudioGlenn said:


> EvilTed said:
> 
> 
> > What Dylan said...
> ...



I still use and enjoy my primes. The 35L is an excellent compliment to the 24-70ii and I use it as much as the zoom.


----------



## pedro (Mar 16, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > Hello guys,
> ...



Thank you for this decent post. I will go for the 16-35 this year. Had a 10-22 on my 30D. So, this is the FF equivalent to it.


----------



## christianronnel (Mar 16, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> 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
> ...


+1 to PWP, not good to compare these two lenses, very different uses and composition.
and I agree with Dylan regarding the image resolutions from both of these lenses.

I know these are two very different images but I hope they give you an idea how much sharper and more contrasty the new 24-70II compared to the 16-35II. Both images were sharpened for screen when uploaded by Lightroom, in low setting.

EF16-35II @ 16mm, F11 on a tripod and manually focused using live view



Frigid Vernal Falls by Christian Ronnel, on Flickr

EF24-70II @ 24mm, f16 on a tripod and manually focussed using live view (one would think @f16 that diffraction will lower the resolution of this lens to the same level as 16-35 at f11)




Golden nugget and cotton candies... by Christian Ronnel, on Flickr

It's a little difficult to see the difference on the monitor but I can definitely see the resolution difference when I printed both at 20x30. My copy of 16-35II, at 28-35mm, the edges are noticeably soft even stopped down to f5.6-f9, but it's decent at the wider end where I need that lens to be useable. I should add though that resolution is not the most important thing. There are just those scenes that you can only get with a UWA lens that you can't reproduce with a 24mm. So like Neuro said, there's a place for both these lenses in your kit. You need both until Canon graces us with an even better UWA lens.


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 16, 2013)

Thank you all of you for all these feedbacks, 
I just bought the 24-70 II two days before, 
while i didn't have time to try it as i would want
Today i'm going at ski station Leysin Switzerland
and take some shots... But with several photos
that i took at home i'm allready impressed by its 
quality. It HAS better IQ than my 16-35 II.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 16, 2013)

christianronnel said:


> LifeAfter said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you guys, i'm really conscious about comparing
> ...



Beautiful photos christianronnel


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 16, 2013)

Comparing these two lenses as noted before is rather unfair...and they are really two very different animals. I am not at all surprised the 24-70 II is sharper...it is newer and is 'more' tele compared to the UWA zoom.

There are things the 16-35II can do that the 24-70II is not going to be able to with the FOV and the "look" of the UWA... and obviously the UWA is never going to be able to do head shots to the extent the standard zoom can... different tools for different tasks. 

I have said before while the 16-35II is great, all things considered, it is not exactly tack-sharp. But I am not sure that sharpness is all there is to any lens either.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 16, 2013)

A couple from 16-35II...



RS2021 said:


> From a recent outing...


----------



## RGF (Mar 17, 2013)

LifeAfter said:


> 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 don't understand what you are saying. If you are frustrated with the IQ from the 24-70, why would you consider buying one?

Focus accuracy can be adjusted in the camera


----------

