October 21, 2014, 07:12:15 AM

Author Topic: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video  (Read 4693 times)

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3507
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« on: July 01, 2014, 11:18:11 PM »
A quick unboxing and contrast with its older sibling the 17-40L.

http://youtu.be/YpTaVMCpfvI

canon rumors FORUM

RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« on: July 01, 2014, 11:18:11 PM »

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3507
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2014, 08:13:51 AM »
Here is part 2 with an IQ and IR test.

Canon EF 16-35 F4 L IS First Impressions & IQ/IR …: http://youtu.be/9NkyRMdM6k0

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1557
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2014, 08:31:35 AM »
Good job.

candyman

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1388
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2014, 08:59:50 AM »
As  I said in the other thread:
Thanks Ramon for spending time on it and share it here on CR.
5DIII w/grip  |  6D  |  16-35L IS  |  24-105L  |  70-300L  |  24-70VC  |  70-200 f/2.8L IS II  |  35 f/2 IS  |  50A  |  135L

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4189
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2014, 09:22:54 AM »
Great info RLPhoto. Thanks
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Northstar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1483
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2014, 09:43:40 AM »
Enjoyed it RL, thanks!
Sport Shooter

1dX and 5d3... 24-70 2.8ii, 70-200 2.8ii, 1.4xiii and 2xiii, 85, 40mm, 300 2.8L IS....430ex

Click

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3221
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2014, 09:45:02 AM »
Thanks for posting this info.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2014, 09:45:02 AM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2014, 09:45:09 AM »
I watched it on my phone which is just sad, but your narration and examples were great and I could even see the difference on my little screen.  Thank you for the review it's very well done and informative.  The IR part was really interesting to see, too, and it seems like IR really puts a lot of demand on the glass.

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1264
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2014, 10:07:47 AM »
Thanks for making this video. I liked the IS tests. 1s exposure is long enough for most of my shots. Goodbye travel tripod!
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

SoullessPolack

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2014, 11:11:02 AM »
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video.  This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF.  We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience.  Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section.  With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points.  If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me?  To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible.  To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television.  Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1557
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2014, 12:27:02 PM »
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video.  This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF.  We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience.  Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section.  With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points.  If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me?  To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible.  To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television.  Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

I understand your point but there are lots of people who would rather watch a review than read. Perhaps.

Pieces Of E

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 139
  • Canon owners and operators
    • View Profile
    • Pieces Of E, LLC
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2014, 12:58:52 PM »
Ramon, first of all, I think your profile pic is awesome man, great job and cool perspective. What camera did you create this video with? Thanks, Eric.
EOS 7D, BG-E7, EF 300L IS f4, EF 100L IS f2.8 macro, EF 24-105L IS f4 , EF 1.4 extender MKIII, EF-S 10-22 f3.5-5.6, 70-200L IS f2.8 II, EOS-M, 22 f2 STM, EF-S 18-135 IS STM, EF 85 f1.8

Vivid Color

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
    • View Profile
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2014, 01:06:18 PM »
Okay, I know this is going to come off as assholish to sensitive people, but I don't mean it that way, I'm just really curious why some people do reviews like this.

I have a feeling people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video.  This review could have easily been done as a simple web page or even PDF.  We are coming to a time when the bandwidth we use may be regulated or charged per usage, so it only makes sense to do it in web page format to reach the maximal audience.  Secondly, a written review could be read quicker, as well as if you were only interested in a certain aspect, you wouldn't have to sit through the whole video, you could just scroll to the appropriate section.  With a video, I either have to suffer through the whole thing, or just not watch it and then miss out on important points.  If I'm at work, I can't watch thirty minutes of video, but I can sure read a written review.

Could someone enlighten me?  To me, I feel as if you're doing a review "for the people", so to speak, then you should do it to "reach the people" as easily as possible.  To give an extreme example, if I want to educate people globally about proper hygiene, I'm not going to make a 4K video, because most of the people who need educating about hygiene wouldn't even have television.  Again, a bit extreme as an example, but just trying to drive home the point and see if anyone could explain to me why these types of reviews are unfortunately so common.

First, to RL, I'd like to say I thought your videos, especially the second one on IQ, were well done and I found the side by side comparisons compelling. While watching the video, I kept thinking how glad I am that I decided against buying either the 17-40L or the 16-35 f2.8 II. After reading other reviews and seeing this video, I know it's not a matter of if I will buy this new lens, but when.

As for Souless' question, I too generally like printed info over video for some of the reasons you stated, but I'm in the baby boom generation. We had a discussion about this at a training class at my office last week and we were told that videos are preferred to print by the younger generations. Of course this is a generalization but I find it a better explanation than people like to hear themselves talk or see themselves on video. (One could also say writers love to see their words in print.) Also, perhaps the reviewer feels more comfortable with the medium of video than writing a review. And, finally, I think there is room for both print and video reviews as each have their own strengths. In this case, as I said, the video comparisons were compelling and even more so than just a printed review. It's one thing to say something is sharper, it's another to see it. Hope my explanation helps.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2014, 01:06:18 PM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2999
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2014, 01:26:58 PM »
I generally prefer to read/see comparisons like this on a web page, too, primarily because it's faster, but I think RL did a nice job.  I'll admit to sighing a bit when I saw it was around 30 minutes long, but I respect RL and wanted to give the video a chance.

As I watched the video, I realized the advantages.  By scrolling around as he narrated, his comments were directly related to what was on screen.  There was no scrolling back & forth to wonder if the words were about the photo above or below them, and I was able to hear his detailed thoughts while he zoomed in and pointed them out.

RL has given me a new appreciation for these types of videos, but I think that has less to do with the format and more to do with how well he put it together and the fact that he is offering intelligent opinions when he speaks.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3507
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2014, 02:15:25 PM »
Thank you for all for the comments and the feedback.

I tried blogging but it's more frustrating than vlogging. I think this is a better format for me to use. I understand how tediously long a video can get when doing something technical like comparing lenses but it's hard to make a video brief when doing.

In reality, I compared two lenses on two bodies, at all apertures, plus added IS tests and my opinions in under 30 minutes on video. I'm very satisfied at managing that.

Still, most of the time it's better to view this on a stills webpage but I like the connection that can be made through video.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RLPhotos first impressions of the 16-35mm f/4L - Video
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2014, 02:15:25 PM »