Sharpness Shootout Part 1

Before we get started, you may want to view the web-optimized images below larger, naturally.

To do this, right-click (or control-click) on an image and click ‘Open Image in New Window‘. This will open it larger, at which point you can zoom in to see better detail.

Or click here to download the actual-size RAW images that I have provided to you. A Retina display is of course ideal for seeing the actual quality, otherwise the 300dpi images downgraded to a typical 72dpi screen won’t do it justice.

METHODOLOGY

To be quite honest, this entire review process was for my own satisfaction and research, so I didn’t get too scientific with it. It does the job, quite effectively, but the images weren’t captured in a lab. They were captured in the real world, so there’s variables that can’t be controlled, such as shifting light, tons of small little bugs which hug the front lens element and more. But here’s my rough and tumble process:

1. Canon 16-35 F4 IS
2. Canon 17-40 F4
3. Sony A7R
4. Sony shutter cable
5. Custom carbon tripod with CNC machined aluminum swivel locks
6. Custom UV filter – 98.7% light transmittance – SCHOTT glass – 3.2mm frame thickness – 16-layer Multi-Resistant Coating – Nano Coating (due to tons of flying insects getting on the front lens element)
7. Manual focusing on Live View at 100%
8. 3 photographs per frame captured, focus reset each time
9. Sharpest of the 3 becomes select
10. Cropped down to the focus point where the manual focusing was set to, highlighted by a red bounding box
11. Export both selects as original size TIFF into photoshop, layout side-by-side
12. Exported as 1200px JPEG in PS at quality 90
13. Uploaded to this site

There’s no adjustment of anything. The images you see here could have been sharpened or adjusted somehow, but they were not. The images presented are simply the RAW outputs. If you haven’t already done so, Click here to download the images yourself and create your own combinations of images!

WHICH IMAGE HAS NO UV FILTER?

The photographs with the yellow flower in the optical performance section of this review were done with a custom UV filter so as to protect the front lens element from tons of annoying sticky insects, however I’ve gone to great length to build a UV filter which, at 3.5mm does not vignette or add light falloff, has 98.7% light transmittance (SCHOTT B270), 16-layers of state-of-the-art multi-resistant coating and two coatings of nanotec® nano coating. As a test, which of the ones below do you think was taken without a UV filter, the left or right image? From my extensive tests, this custom UV filter doesn’t mess with the resolving power of the lens in the slightest.

RESULTS   The image on the left was shot with the 16-35 F4, the one on the right is the 17-40.

It’s nearly equal, however the right image appears sharper to my eyes.

Winner: 17-40

Note: Hypothetically lenses performing above the minim focal length or below the maximum would have a performance advantage over lenses performing at the maximum ends of the focal range.

RESULTS   The image on the left was shot with the 17-40, the one on the right is the 16-35.

The right image is clearly sharper. Neither image has any CA.

Winner: 16-35 F4

RESULTS   The image on the left was shot with the 17-40, the one on the right is the 16-35.

The upper right part of the subject on the left looks to be a bit sharper, but It’s pretty close, and on my screen they’re equal.

Winner: Tie

RESULTS   The image on the left was shot with the 17-40, the one on the right is the 16-35.

The right image is clearly sharper. The left image is a bit softer, and has ever so slight CA.

Winner: 16-35 F4

RESULTS   The image on the left was shot with the 17-40, the one on the right is the 16-35 F4.

The left image is a bit sharper.

Winner: 17-40

RESULTS   The image on the left was shot with the 16-35, the one on the right is the 17-40.

The left image is considerably sharper.

There’s zero color fringing on the left image, and to the naked eye the right too, but upon 400% inspection there’s very slight CA, likely as a result of softness.

Winner: 16-35 F4

RESULTS   The image on the left was shot with the 17-40, the one on the right is the 16-35.

It’s pretty close, and aside from the half stop of increased exposure (raw images presented, no adjustments) they may be equal, but on my screen the left image looks sharper.

Winner: 17-40

RESULTS   The image on the left was shot with the 17-40, the one on the right is the 16-35.

It looks to be nearly identical in terms of sharpness, but the left image might have slight edge. The right image has virtually no CA, however. Let’s call it a tie on sharpness, with a clear winner for CA.

Winner: Tie on sharpness, 16-35 F4 on CA performance