October 22, 2014, 01:56:10 AM

Author Topic: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...  (Read 18973 times)

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 #105 on: July 27, 2014, 09:39:00 PM »
I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too.  :-[
I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. 

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.
They'll probably announce it at Photokina, just to be cruel...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #105 on: July 27, 2014, 09:39:00 PM »

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1367
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #106 on: July 28, 2014, 12:27:20 AM »
I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. 

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.

I forgot how useful it was to have AF in the ultrawide range for a walk-around lens until I swapped the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS.  Now, I look for reasons to use it.  I use the 24-35mm range on it for about 1/3 of the shots I keep.  It may not be as good as the 24-70 II, but it is still excellent and saves on a lot of lens changes and renders in a similarly pleasing way.  I'd rather have the f/2.8 over the IS, but for now, I like the 16-35 f/4 IS a lot.

The 12/14-24 will likely not accept screw in filters, but the thing I'd miss most from it is the range up to 35mm for shots with people in them.  Given the life stage (young kids), I'm more likely to use a 16-35 than a 12/14-24, although I'd look at the 12/14-24 as a replacement for my 14.

thedman

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #107 on: July 29, 2014, 11:12:25 AM »
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.

Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg


ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #108 on: July 29, 2014, 12:33:00 PM »
Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg

Lovely shot.  Terrific.  Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a rookie on landscape work -- how on earth did you get the trees in the foreground so bright?  It looks like those trees are below the line of the sun, and your skyline is sufficiently uneven to make using an ND grad pretty difficult.  So how did you get that?  What that a composite of a few exposures?  Surely you didn't just push up the shadows in post...

- A

thedman

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #109 on: July 29, 2014, 03:53:41 PM »
Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg

Lovely shot.  Terrific.  Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a rookie on landscape work -- how on earth did you get the trees in the foreground so bright?  It looks like those trees are below the line of the sun, and your skyline is sufficiently uneven to make using an ND grad pretty difficult.  So how did you get that?  What that a composite of a few exposures?  Surely you didn't just push up the shadows in post...

- A

Thanks! You're right about the composite - it's one shot for the ground and one for the sky. The trees in the middle aren't as below the horizon as it looks... they're kind of coming up the hillside at me. The very tops of them were just getting touched by a bit of sun. Add a bit of curves and you have bright trees.  :)

VitC

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #110 on: July 29, 2014, 05:15:59 PM »
I'm really pleased by the improved edge image quality over the 17-40, this means no more worries when shooting larger groups.  What I noticed though is that the lens attracted more dust on the front element than any of the other L lenses.  What changed in the coating?  Or is it just me?

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #111 on: July 30, 2014, 11:36:41 AM »
I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too.  :-[
I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. 

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.
They'll probably announce it at Photokina, just to be cruel...
Very cruel considering I have just bought the f/4 IS version. Add to that the fact that  bought 16-35 2.8L a few months/one year before the 16-35 2.8L II and you have the complete picture!  ;D

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #111 on: July 30, 2014, 11:36:41 AM »

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #112 on: July 30, 2014, 11:51:46 AM »
I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. 

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.

I forgot how useful it was to have AF in the ultrawide range for a walk-around lens until I swapped the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS.  Now, I look for reasons to use it.  I use the 24-35mm range on it for about 1/3 of the shots I keep.  It may not be as good as the 24-70 II, but it is still excellent and saves on a lot of lens changes and renders in a similarly pleasing way.  I'd rather have the f/2.8 over the IS, but for now, I like the 16-35 f/4 IS a lot.

The 12/14-24 will likely not accept screw in filters, but the thing I'd miss most from it is the range up to 35mm for shots with people in them.  Given the life stage (young kids), I'm more likely to use a 16-35 than a 12/14-24, although I'd look at the 12/14-24 as a replacement for my 14.

+1 on 16-35 over 14-24 for the ability to front filter.  2mm wider is admittedly non-trivial on the UWA end of things, but bulbous front elements are a non-starter for me.

(And yes: that's a +1 for the 16-35 vs. something that we have no credible evidence that it exists.  Such is the allure of the mythical 14-24, sheesh.)

- A

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1859
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #113 on: July 30, 2014, 11:58:45 AM »
I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. 

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.

I forgot how useful it was to have AF in the ultrawide range for a walk-around lens until I swapped the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS.  Now, I look for reasons to use it.  I use the 24-35mm range on it for about 1/3 of the shots I keep.  It may not be as good as the 24-70 II, but it is still excellent and saves on a lot of lens changes and renders in a similarly pleasing way.  I'd rather have the f/2.8 over the IS, but for now, I like the 16-35 f/4 IS a lot.

The 12/14-24 will likely not accept screw in filters, but the thing I'd miss most from it is the range up to 35mm for shots with people in them.  Given the life stage (young kids), I'm more likely to use a 16-35 than a 12/14-24, although I'd look at the 12/14-24 as a replacement for my 14.

+1 on 16-35 over 14-24 for the ability to front filter.  2mm wider is admittedly non-trivial on the UWA end of things, but bulbous front elements are a non-starter for me.

(And yes: that's a +1 for the 16-35 vs. something that we have no credible evidence that it exists.  Such is the allure of the mythical 14-24, sheesh.)

- A
+1 too. A 16-35 2.8 with sharp corners and no coma would be even more useful than my 14 2.8 II for astrophotography since there are cases where I could do with the more protective hood of 16-35 vs the small built in hood in 14 2.8 II combined with a bulbuous front element which makes it prone to flare from sideways light.

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #114 on: July 31, 2014, 05:13:39 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 #115 on: August 14, 2014, 09:28:01 AM »
And the SLRGear is finally in: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1712/cat/11

I think that leaves DxOMark as the only major reviewer left.

candc

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #116 on: August 14, 2014, 10:35:13 PM »
flash bulletin. the canon 16-35 f/4 is pretty good. i picked mine up from the ups service center (adorama requires in person sig nowadays).

the first picture i took was in the parking lot and it was love at first sight.

ups parking lots are not the most scenic of locals but hey, when you have sharpness, contrast, and color like that?

ahsanford

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 926
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #117 on: August 15, 2014, 10:57:30 AM »

Sigma: 14-24 F/4 OS is rumored for Photokina...

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #117 on: August 15, 2014, 10:57:30 AM »

msm

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #118 on: August 20, 2014, 01:31:31 PM »
Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg

Lovely shot.  Terrific.  Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a rookie on landscape work -- how on earth did you get the trees in the foreground so bright?  It looks like those trees are below the line of the sun, and your skyline is sufficiently uneven to make using an ND grad pretty difficult.  So how did you get that?  What that a composite of a few exposures?  Surely you didn't just push up the shadows in post...

- A

Thanks! You're right about the composite - it's one shot for the ground and one for the sky. The trees in the middle aren't as below the horizon as it looks... they're kind of coming up the hillside at me. The very tops of them were just getting touched by a bit of sun. Add a bit of curves and you have bright trees.  :)

Didn't see this before now, but I too want to say great shot!

Good example of what can be done when people go out and use their camera to do what it can do instead of running to forums to complain about what it can't do. ;)

bosshog7_2000

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #119 on: August 26, 2014, 03:15:09 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

I noticed the same thing and this is why I will not buy the new 16-35mm f4.  For my purposes, the 17-40mm is just as good at the widest setting and f11 which is where I do all of my landscape work.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« Reply #119 on: August 26, 2014, 03:15:09 PM »