16-35L 16mm@f/2.8
16-35L 20mm@f/2.8
20-35 20mm@f/3.5 (max aperture)
Need to spend $1,400?
Here's my results on a quick test of Canon's new 16-35L f/2.8 vs. the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 and for fun, a Canon G1 (at 35mm focal length equivalent). All shots are in RAW ISO100 (G1 ISO50) aperture priority, evaluative metering. Converted 8bit TIFFs and web JPEGs created by BreezeBrowser. Cropped in PS6.
Initial conclusion of 16-35L: Great at 16mm-20mm/f8, pathetic at 35mm f/2.8-8 (or any focal length wide open). Despite the slightly better performance at 20mm f/8 vs. the 20-35 (I was hoping to replace) and of coarse, the extra 4mm, this lens is going back!
Crissy Field 100% magnification crops here Other Golden Gate Bridge examples here
If you would like to wade through the BB html template to find EXIF info go here
|
16-35L 16mm@f/2.8 |
|
|
16-35L 20mm@f/2.8 |
20-35 20mm@f/3.5 (max aperture) |
|
16-35L 16mm@f/8 |
|
|
16-35L 20mm@f/8 |
20-35 20mm@f/8 |
|
16-35L 35mm@f/2.8 |
20-35 35mm@f/4.5 (max aperture) |
|
16-35L 35mm@f/8 |
20-35 35mm@f/8 |
|
G1 35mm@f/5 |
Additional tests @f/22 (G1 at best f/5)..........sorry no 100% crops
16-35L 16mm@f/22 |
 
16-35L 20mm@f/22 20-35 20mm@f/22 |
 
16-35L 35mm@f/22 20-35 35mm@f/22 |
|
G1 "35mm"@f/5 |
