October 26, 2014, 01:11:20 AM

Author Topic: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...  (Read 19118 times)

wsheldon

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
    • View Profile
    • sheldon-photo
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2014, 02:36:50 PM »
...
Either way, lens testing is road to madness.  I say rent before you buy and you'll never be upset.

- A

Even that isn't a guarantee, given sample-to-sample variation in lenses and lens-body interactions. Check the LensRentals blog for some large sample-size comparisons of popular lenses to see how scattered they are in IQ and focus accuracy, e.g. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-perfect-lens

Bottom line is that imaging perfection is a unicorn chase, requiring lots of free time and money. Not to say that I'll stop reading these tests and lusting too ;)
« Last Edit: July 02, 2014, 02:40:16 PM by wsheldon »
Canon 6D & 50D, nice set of lenses

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2014, 02:36:50 PM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2014, 10:09:22 AM »
Here's another:
http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/#.U7Vjk0BUhI0

Summary:
Wow, not even close.  Canon clearly has a winner with the new EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM lens.  It holds details well in the extreme corners and it’s almost free of chromatic aberrations.  It’s definitely worth the upgrade from the 17-40.  While I don’t have a direct comparison to the 16-35mm f/2.8 II, I’ve used that lens in the past and found it about equal to the 17-40 in the mid range apertures.  if you don’t need the extra 1 stop, the new EF 16-35mm is the way to go for an extreme wide angle zoom lens.

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2014, 12:11:09 PM »
And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine.  I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.

But the sample pictures I see do not give a ringing endorsement of sharper corners other than new lens has more useful corners at larger apertures

So I looked at PZ's sharpness data, and my eyes may not fooling me after all:

@ F/4 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3342   2730    1073
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3482   2945    2195
16-35 F/4L IS:     3540  2826     2556

@ F/8 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3278   2896  2197
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3249   2882  2744
16-35 F/4L IS:     3390  3023   2766

@ F/11 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3012   2760  2577
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3000   2734  2669
16-35 F/4L IS:    3059   2796  2614

And, without transcribing it all, the relationship on the longest FL end is similar.  PhotoZone only gave it a 3.5 star (out of five) for optical quality, and with the numbers above, I can see why.

So -- were we to assume this data is correct (remember, PZ only gets one copy of a lens) -- we might think that:

  • The new lens will, in fact, not be sharper at the apertures landscape photographers shoot
  • The new lens is sharper in the corners for more wide open apertures.

Do you folks buy this?  For those who own the new 16-35 and either the old 16-35 or 17-40, have you had a similar experience?

- A






ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2014, 01:11:41 PM »

And Kai's classic adjective-laden review of the 16-35 F/4L IS:
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-16-35mm-f-4l/MjM5NzkyOTAy

- A

digital-jesus

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2014, 01:36:36 PM »
And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine.  I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.

But the sample pictures I see do not give a ringing endorsement of sharper corners other than new lens has more useful corners at larger apertures

So I looked at PZ's sharpness data, and my eyes may not fooling me after all:

@ F/4 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3342   2730    1073
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3482   2945    2195
16-35 F/4L IS:     3540  2826     2556

@ F/8 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3278   2896  2197
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3249   2882  2744
16-35 F/4L IS:     3390  3023   2766

@ F/11 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3012   2760  2577
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3000   2734  2669
16-35 F/4L IS:    3059   2796  2614

And, without transcribing it all, the relationship on the longest FL end is similar.  PhotoZone only gave it a 3.5 star (out of five) for optical quality, and with the numbers above, I can see why.

So -- were we to assume this data is correct (remember, PZ only gets one copy of a lens) -- we might think that:

  • The new lens will, in fact, not be sharper at the apertures landscape photographers shoot
  • The new lens is sharper in the corners for more wide open apertures.

Do you folks buy this?  For those who own the new 16-35 and either the old 16-35 or 17-40, have you had a similar experience?

- A

You are 100% right. I came to the same conclusion, so I will continue with the 17-40.

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2014, 02:19:01 PM »
And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine.  I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.

But the sample pictures I see do not give a ringing endorsement of sharper corners other than new lens has more useful corners at larger apertures

So I looked at PZ's sharpness data, and my eyes may not fooling me after all:

@ F/4 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3342   2730    1073
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3482   2945    2195
16-35 F/4L IS:     3540  2826     2556

@ F/8 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3278   2896  2197
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3249   2882  2744
16-35 F/4L IS:     3390  3023   2766

@ F/11 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3012   2760  2577
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3000   2734  2669
16-35 F/4L IS:    3059   2796  2614

And, without transcribing it all, the relationship on the longest FL end is similar.  PhotoZone only gave it a 3.5 star (out of five) for optical quality, and with the numbers above, I can see why.

So -- were we to assume this data is correct (remember, PZ only gets one copy of a lens) -- we might think that:

  • The new lens will, in fact, not be sharper at the apertures landscape photographers shoot
  • The new lens is sharper in the corners for more wide open apertures.

Do you folks buy this?  For those who own the new 16-35 and either the old 16-35 or 17-40, have you had a similar experience?

- A

Hi,
I think photozone is accurate, their results match those of TDP.

Versus the 16-35mm f/2.8L II - I've been saying this since the 16-35mm f/4 IS came out.  The main areas you see significant improvement is f/4-f/5.6, which is generally too narrow for events, but too wide for traditional landscape shots.  f/8 has minimal improvement that likely would not be noticeable in real world use, and even in strict testing f/11 appears to be about the same in both. Plus, I actually like the 16-35mm f/2.8L II sunstars better than the new f/4 IS, which is subjective.  So, in most cases I would recommend those who have the 16-35 f/2.8L II to hold on to it, unless you really truly definitely will never need f/2.8 - and also want that extra sharpness at f/4-f/5.6.

Versus the 17-40mm f/4 - I think there is a good case in upgrading to the 16-35 f/4 IS.  While the 16-35 f/4 IS will not make you a better photographer, I think it does offer a noticeable improvement over the 17-40L at all apertures at f/8 or wider.  Having that big improvement at f/8 is significant IMO, as f/8 is useful for landscape albeit a little wide.  But, once again at f/11 it becomes very close - still the 16-35mm f/4 IS will be a better bet due to the new coatings which reduce flare.  Also, sunstars on the 16-35mm f/4 IS appear superior to those on the 17-40 as another reason to upgrade, but again I don't feel either's competes with the 16-35 II f/2.8's sunstars.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 02:23:02 PM by Ruined »

fugu82

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2014, 03:12:37 PM »
I am seriously considering trading in my 16-35II f/2.8 on the new f/4 IS, simply because the f/4 reportedly plays very nicely with IR [unlike the miserably awful 2.8 in IR]. I don't expect to miss that stop, and will get a dual-purpose UWA.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2014, 03:12:37 PM »

Otter

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2014, 03:28:24 PM »
And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine.  I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.

But the sample pictures I see do not give a ringing endorsement of sharper corners other than new lens has more useful corners at larger apertures

So I looked at PZ's sharpness data, and my eyes may not fooling me after all:

@ F/4 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3342   2730    1073
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3482   2945    2195
16-35 F/4L IS:     3540  2826     2556

@ F/8 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3278   2896  2197
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3249   2882  2744
16-35 F/4L IS:     3390  3023   2766

@ F/11 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3012   2760  2577
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3000   2734  2669
16-35 F/4L IS:    3059   2796  2614

And, without transcribing it all, the relationship on the longest FL end is similar.  PhotoZone only gave it a 3.5 star (out of five) for optical quality, and with the numbers above, I can see why.

So -- were we to assume this data is correct (remember, PZ only gets one copy of a lens) -- we might think that:

  • The new lens will, in fact, not be sharper at the apertures landscape photographers shoot
  • The new lens is sharper in the corners for more wide open apertures.

Do you folks buy this?  For those who own the new 16-35 and either the old 16-35 or 17-40, have you had a similar experience?

- A

Numbers aside, if I look at a comparison of image quality between the 16-35mm 2.6 and F4 here :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

I find a noticeable difference in the mid and corners at F11, which tells my eyes not to trust the numbers.

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2014, 04:08:08 PM »
And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine.  I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.

But the sample pictures I see do not give a ringing endorsement of sharper corners other than new lens has more useful corners at larger apertures

So I looked at PZ's sharpness data, and my eyes may not fooling me after all:

@ F/4 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3342   2730    1073
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3482   2945    2195
16-35 F/4L IS:     3540  2826     2556

@ F/8 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3278   2896  2197
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3249   2882  2744
16-35 F/4L IS:     3390  3023   2766

@ F/11 @ Widest FL:

(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L:         3012   2760  2577
16-35 F/2.8 II:     3000   2734  2669
16-35 F/4L IS:    3059   2796  2614

And, without transcribing it all, the relationship on the longest FL end is similar.  PhotoZone only gave it a 3.5 star (out of five) for optical quality, and with the numbers above, I can see why.

So -- were we to assume this data is correct (remember, PZ only gets one copy of a lens) -- we might think that:

  • The new lens will, in fact, not be sharper at the apertures landscape photographers shoot
  • The new lens is sharper in the corners for more wide open apertures.

Do you folks buy this?  For those who own the new 16-35 and either the old 16-35 or 17-40, have you had a similar experience?

- A

Numbers aside, if I look at a comparison of image quality between the 16-35mm 2.6 and F4 here :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

I find a noticeable difference in the mid and corners at F11, which tells my eyes not to trust the numbers.

I disagree, the noticeable difference I see in the mid and corners at f/11 are CA, not sharpness.  Of course, you can remove CA in post.  f/4-f/5.6 are where there are truly noticeable sharpness differences in the corners.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 04:16:23 PM by Ruined »

Mr_Canuck

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2014, 04:25:42 PM »
Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.
6D | Voigt 20 | 40STM | 50/2.5M | 70-200/4is | EX420 | ST-E2 | Velbon ultra lux iL | RX100 — go light, go far...

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2014, 04:33:51 PM »
Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.
I have compared it to my 24-70 II, 24L, TS-E 17, and TS-E 24 II and it's every bit as sharp as those lenses, with the exception of the TS-E 24 and the 24-70II @ 35mm.  At f/11 they are all pretty close, though I'd give the 16-35 f/4 IS & 24-70II the edge in color and contrast.  Really.  The corners are MUCH sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8 II that I sold in part because CA is almost non-existent.  Distortion isn't great at 16mm, but I'm sure DxO & Adobe will take care of that soon.  The IS is very odd because you can't see the effect like you do with an unwieldy telephoto, but I think it will be a great travel/walkaround lens.

I'll put together the photos in the coming days (both brick wall & real-world shots) for everyone to take a look at.

Ruined

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2014, 04:43:19 PM »
Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.

Photographers take amazing photos, not gear ;) But, gear can make it easier...

CanoKnight

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2014, 07:29:50 PM »

  The IS is very odd because you can't see the effect like you do with an unwieldy telephoto, but I think it will be a great travel/walkaround lens.

The IS is for shooting video while handholding.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2014, 07:31:40 PM by CanoKnight »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2014, 07:29:50 PM »

Phenix205

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2014, 10:06:38 PM »
Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.
I have compared it to my 24-70 II, 24L, TS-E 17, and TS-E 24 II and it's every bit as sharp as those lenses, with the exception of the TS-E 24 and the 24-70II @ 35mm.  At f/11 they are all pretty close, though I'd give the 16-35 f/4 IS & 24-70II the edge in color and contrast.  Really.  The corners are MUCH sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8 II that I sold in part because CA is almost non-existent.  Distortion isn't great at 16mm, but I'm sure DxO & Adobe will take care of that soon.  The IS is very odd because you can't see the effect like you do with an unwieldy telephoto, but I think it will be a great travel/walkaround lens.

I'll put together the photos in the coming days (both brick wall & real-world shots) for everyone to take a look at.

Really looking forward to your photos. I'm particularly interested in your comparison between the 16-35 4L and the 24 TS-E as I was seriously considering the latter before the former was announced. Thanks.
5D3 | M | 1v
70-200 II | 24-70 II | 16-35 IS | 100 L | 85L II | 40 | 600EX-RT

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2014, 02:40:21 AM »
Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.

Yes, it's a lovely lens.  But for landscapes, which is what I am going to use it for, I need to know that I am not just paying +$400 for IS over the 17-40 F/4L.

So I'm not being critic.  I think I am going to buy this lens.  But before my money comes out, I am asking this group:

1) Did Canon really deliver on those stellar MTF charts?  Is this is the sharp-in-the-corner landscape lens many have been looking for?

2) For landscape work on a FF body (both on a tripod and handheld), and presuming that I want an UWA zoom, is this the best one to get?

- A


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2014, 02:40:21 AM »