I haven't personally, but I haven't shot longer than perhaps 1/8s exposures handheld with this lens yet. Just curious: have you verified it's a legit lens event and not wind, moving subject, etc.?
I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.
Yeah....I have a Zeiss 21mm and the Sigma 35mm Art that I did personal, informal testing against my new Canon 16-35mm IS. So...I used to never use my 16-35mm f/2.8 II because the Zeiss and the Sigma blew it away....but damn...these are all very close in sharpness now....hmmmmmmm...the others do offer the faster f/stops though.
I have noticed some funky motion blur in some of my shots caused by the I S though, when I am shooting at reasonable shutter speeds like 1/30... Anyone else seeing this issue?
I just assumed the IS worked like other Canon lenses. Reviewers like Bryan Carnathan certainly raved about it:
"Under ideal conditions (standing indoors on a solid floor) and shooting completely freehand, at 16mm, I obtained a decent sharp image percentage down to about .6 seconds for just over 3 stops of assistance. A very slow trail-off in keeper rate ensued and with an occasional sharp image at exposures as long as an unreal 2.5 seconds (as shared above and a new record for me). At 35mm, I had a decent sharp image percentage down to about .4 seconds (just under 4 stops) with a few sharp images remaining at exposures as long as 1 second."
Yeah..everything I have read is super positive about the IS. I am an extremely experienced photographer. I just took the three lenses into a decently lit area of my kitchen and did steady-Eddie hand-held shots. So I had no moving objects in the frame etc. In some of my shots with the Zeiss I shot as low as 1/25sec... And the images had classic motion blur...I expected it...but sometimes I can hold steady. My co/fusion/concern is when I shot with the New Canon zoom. I did not shoot below 1/8sec ...and I shot up into 1/30sec...well within (and above) the range that critics are raving that the lens can handle...now I would think that In the 1/8 area I could have a percentage of sharp shots...but when I start getting into the 1/20sec-1/30sec...I would expect all images to be sharp as the IS should compensate....but some of the images in this shutter range had that double-shot effect type blur...(I think that this is characteristic of IS attempting to freeze the shot, but failing). It was no just blur like I have with the Sigma and the Zeiss. I know what that looks like, all too often LOL!
I think we can agree that with the Canon lens on 16mm and the IS on, about 5ft. from subject at f/10 (no it isn't an out of focus phenomenon at this fstop.and I focus at a mid point in the depth of the frame)... These pics should be sharp EVERY time I hit the shutter with this much-touted IS....but some of the frames had that double image softness.
My thought is, and it is why I asked the question here is maybe I have a clunker with faulty IS?
I bought the lens @B &H so I have 30days to return it...
I will do some more testing and see if it is reoccurring.
Would you agree that at anywhere in the zoom range at 1/20sec all my shots should be crystal clear of stationary objects when focused in the middle of the depth of the scene at say f/9-f/16?
Like I said, I am very experienced and truly know and understand ALL the variables...except the IS ..LOL!