Canon 16-35 L II vs. Zeiss 18 vs. Canon 20-35 L vs. Canon 24-105 L
My continuing quest for a replacement ultra wide angle for my Canon 5DmkII is focusing in on two contenders. The Canon 16-35mm L II and the Zeiss 18mm. The informal field test below compares these lenses against my current wide angles; an older Canon 20-35mm f/2.8 L, and a current 24-105mm f/4 IS L.
The Contenders
- Canon 20-35mm f/2.8 L
- Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II
- Zeiss 18mm f/3.5
- Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS L
Methodology
All images shot on a tripod mounted Canon 5D Mark II using mirror lockup and remote trigger to avoid any extraneous vibration. Camera was set to ISO 100, using Aperture Priority, and captured in RAW format. The RAW images were opened in Photoshop CS5 Camera Raw using default settings with no additional sharpening. 100% crops were sampled from the Center, Left Side, and Lower Right, and saved as high quality JPG files. (Note that the Zeiss 18mm will differ slightly as is was shot previously at a different time of day)

Center — Wide Open




Center — f/8




Side — f/2.8




Side — f/8




Lower right — wide open




Lower right — f/8




Conclusion
My current 20-35mm L is no match for the modern 16-35mm f/2.8 L II or the Zeiss 18mm. Both of these lenses outperform my current lens, so now the question is which to go with. Even though the Zeiss 18mm outperforms the Canon 16-35mm in the corners when shooting wide open, I would have to say that the Canon holds it own in the center. And when stopped down, I would have to call it a draw.
As much as I loved the feel of the Zeiss, for the type of shooting I do, I think I will be happier with the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II. Once it arrives, I'll try to do some test shots, and share the results and my first impressions.
Dave Brinda



Reader Comments