December 09, 2016, 04:38:52 PM

Author Topic: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...  (Read 48002 times)

digital-jesus

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 10
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #30 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2014, 01:36:36 PM »

Ruined

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 795
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #31 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 M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #32 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.

Otter

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 25
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #33 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

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 795
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #34 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

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 216
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #35 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 | 24-70/4 | 40STM | 50/2.5M | 70-200/4is | 100/2.8L | EX270 | EX420 | ST-E2 | Velbon ultra lux iL | RX100

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3981
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #36 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.
CPS Score: 111 points

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2014, 04:33:51 PM »

Ruined

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 795
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #37 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

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #38 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 »

Phenix205

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #39 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
EF: 70-200 II | 24-70 II | 16-35 IS | 100 L | 85L II | 40
EF-M: 11-22 | 22

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3923
  • USM > STM
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #40 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


ahsanford

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3923
  • USM > STM
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #41 on: July 07, 2014, 02:51:02 AM »

  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.

That's one thing you can do with it. 

IS is fantastic for stills of non-moving scenes in poor light.  Compared to a non-IS lens of the same specs, you can:

  • Net the same shot with 3-4 stops lower ISO.
  • Keep the ISO the same and walk the aperture down 3-4 stops and get more working DOF in a sharper smaller aperture.

Put another way:  There are certain places/circumstances where you cannot use or do not have a tripod or a flash, and that's when IS can save your bacon.  As a handheld, natural light shooter (98% of the time), I absolutely love it at all focal lengths, especially at night.

- A

PhilA

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 20
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #42 on: July 07, 2014, 03:26:14 AM »

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

Yes.

Yes.

Unless you have the absolute need for f2.8 (and for whatever reason upping the ISO won't work for you) then the f4L  is much sharper - at least from f4 to f8 - in the corners. The centres are pretty much the same on both. Plus you have the bonus of the IS.

http://www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #42 on: July 07, 2014, 03:26:14 AM »

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3923
  • USM > STM
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #43 on: July 07, 2014, 04:11:05 AM »

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

Yes.

Yes.

Unless you have the absolute need for f2.8 (and for whatever reason upping the ISO won't work for you) then the f4L  is much sharper - at least from f4 to f8 - in the corners. The centres are pretty much the same on both. Plus you have the bonus of the IS.

http://www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg
Thanks.

Yeah, I'm a jerk for asking that first question.   :D   It's clear from the data I have linked (as well as samples from a number of reviewers) that at landscape apertures this lens is not a massive improvement like the MTF charts implied.   It's a very good lens, don't get me wrong, but the MTF charts (esp. in comparison to the lackluster 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L charts) would have had me expecting larger improvements.

But for the other reasons mentioned -- IS, good control of CA, 77mm filters, etc. -- I'm probably still going to buy it anyway.  My 2nd question is still a resounding 'Yes' to me right now.   ;D

- A

Khalai

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
  • Let there be (flattering) light!
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2014, 12:56:18 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.

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

My copy of 16-35/4L simply put old but trusty 17-40/4L into retirement. Those cornes are improved quite noticeably. No horrid CA, no mushiness, no lacking contrast. Even wide open, it's quite usable in the corners, from about f/8, it's satisfactory sharp enough for most people I guess.
6D | 7D | 16-35/4L | 24-70/2.8L II | 50/1.2L | 100/2.8L | 70-200/2.8L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2014, 12:56:18 PM »