June 21, 2018, 02:31:44 PM

Author Topic: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM  (Read 149718 times)

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4016
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #45 on: August 30, 2014, 07:27:38 PM »
I returned to an old favorite place this morning called South Swamp, almost 3 years to the day of my last visit and I'm happy with the results:

That's a great shot, looks  menacing.
Thanks, it's a really interesting and yes, menacing place.  Nothing too scary today other than some deer & biting flies, though :)
CPS Score: 111 points, those 0 and 1 point items really add up

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #45 on: August 30, 2014, 07:27:38 PM »

andrewflo

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #46 on: August 30, 2014, 07:45:26 PM »
Love the shots guys thanks for sharing!

I've decided to hold off for Photokina in the unlikely event that the Sigma 14-24mm rumor is true, and the Sigma trumps the new Canon.

These shots are making it incredibly hard to maintain my patience  :o
6D | 70-200L II | 16-35 ƒ/4L | 100L | TAMRON 24-70 | SIGMA 15 Fisheye | EOS M3 | EF-M 22 | EF-M 18-55

Mitch.Conner

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 537
  • It was all a lie.
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2014, 08:44:13 PM »
Ugh.  I can't make up my mind.  Do I want f/2.8 or do I want IS with f/4?  Or do I want to wait and see if the 11-24 rumor ever pans out.

Eldar

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3241
    • Flickr
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #48 on: August 31, 2014, 02:14:41 PM »
I have had this lens for a couple of weeks now, but not really had the chance to use it very much. But I spent a week in Provence/France and did get some use. Here are a number of examples. I post them with as much resolution as CR permits, so you can pixel peep a bit.

This first is from Basilique Sainte Marie Madeleine, in Saint Maximine, where they have what is believed (and agreed) to be the scull of Maria Magdalena.

1DX, 1/25s, f8.0, ISO4000 @16mm

Comment: The colors are totally off the original. I have experienced this in the past and there is a setting to correct it, but I don´t remember how. Anyone with better memory/qualifications?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014, 02:16:57 PM by Eldar »

Eldar

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3241
    • Flickr
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #49 on: August 31, 2014, 02:19:53 PM »
Another at 16mm, f5.6 1/30s, ISO800

Eldar

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3241
    • Flickr
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #50 on: August 31, 2014, 02:22:30 PM »
Olive trees at Ch. Berne

@16mm, f4.0, 1/320s, ISO100

Jim Saunders

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1061
    • HHA Photo
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #51 on: August 31, 2014, 02:41:47 PM »
Comment: The colors are totally off the original. I have experienced this in the past and there is a setting to correct it, but I don´t remember how. Anyone with better memory/qualifications?

The conversion from AdobeRGB to sRGB can get sideways sometimes.  Also, if you calibrated your monitor to an ICC v4 profile it usually ends poorly.  Probably the former though; if you have PS try the settings in the save for web dialog.

Jim
A good image might fit entirely into the histogram, might not.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #51 on: August 31, 2014, 02:41:47 PM »

candc

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1262
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #52 on: September 01, 2014, 10:39:55 AM »
i really like the basilica photo. the colors are a lot different in the downloaded version compared to what appears on the web here?

the lines and perspective are nice and straight. it looks like you made a software correction? i don't know how much framing you lose by doing that but it looks great. maybe you will be using your tilt shift lens now?

fugu82

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #53 on: September 01, 2014, 11:14:02 AM »
Wow! Such great shots, everyone. This also plays well with infrared, which is why I dumped my 2.8 for it. EOS-M converted to 590 nm with 16-35 f/4.

Jim Saunders

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1061
    • HHA Photo
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #54 on: September 01, 2014, 11:44:58 AM »
i really like the basilica photo. the colors are a lot different in the downloaded version compared to what appears on the web here?


The original is in ProPhoto RGB, and generating thumbs from it gives unusual colours like that.  Toggling colour management on and off in Photomechanic gives the same results.  Firefox can display the original image correctly, but not the thumb; I take it the site generates sRGB thumbnails from uploaded images.

Jim
A good image might fit entirely into the histogram, might not.

Khalai

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 714
  • In the absence of light, darknoise prevails...
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #55 on: September 01, 2014, 11:45:54 AM »
I just love this lens. Very nicely complements my 24-70/2.8L II. I liked the 17-40/4L I've used for four years, but this is definitely a much improved beast.

This is a recent photo of a lake Lipno in southern Bohemia, where I spent a weekend on a landscape workshop. Some fooling around with LEE Mahogany and Little Stopper filters :)
6D | Zeiss 21/2.8 | Canon 24-70/2.8L II | Zeiss 25/2 | Zeiss 35/1.4 | Canon 50/1.2L | Zeiss 50/1.4 | Zeiss 50/2 Makro | Zeiss 85/1.4 | Canon 70-200/2.8L II

Click

  • Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L
  • ************
  • Posts: 10474
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #56 on: September 01, 2014, 11:49:25 AM »
Very nice shot Khalai.

Eldar

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3241
    • Flickr
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #57 on: September 01, 2014, 12:24:07 PM »
i really like the basilica photo. the colors are a lot different in the downloaded version compared to what appears on the web here?

the lines and perspective are nice and straight. it looks like you made a software correction? i don't know how much framing you lose by doing that but it looks great. maybe you will be using your tilt shift lens now?
Thanks candc. Yes, the colors are very different on the web. The downloaded version is quite correct. And you are right, I did used a -15 vertical transform in LR and cropped a bit. Unfortunately the trip was not planned and I did not bring my TS-E lenses. They would have just right for this.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #57 on: September 01, 2014, 12:24:07 PM »

Eldar

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3241
    • Flickr
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #58 on: September 01, 2014, 12:29:30 PM »
i really like the basilica photo. the colors are a lot different in the downloaded version compared to what appears on the web here?


The original is in ProPhoto RGB, and generating thumbs from it gives unusual colours like that.  Toggling colour management on and off in Photomechanic gives the same results.  Firefox can display the original image correctly, but not the thumb; I take it the site generates sRGB thumbnails from uploaded images.

Jim
I´m sure you´re right Jim, but I use the same basic setup for all my images and most of my posts here comes through OK. But it may be that something changed with the latest CR update.

Ruined

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 796
Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #59 on: September 02, 2014, 09:30:49 AM »
One thing I like about this lens is it requires minimal post processing to deliver an image without distracting artifacts.  You can't say that about most Canon UWA lenses.

One thing I don't like as much is the sunstars, at least from what I've seen thus far.  The rays look thick and not as commanding as the sunstars of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II.  Of course that lens requires some significant post work to remove CA, add sharpening and is not as sharp in the corners at wider apertures.  The best one I've seen of the 16-35 f/4 IS thus far is here (16-35 f/4 IS on left, 16-35 f/2.8L II on right):
http://www.alexnail.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/coatings.jpg

I have to say, there have been times that the 16-35 f/2.8L II has given me sunstars that were unexpectedly long and in ways intruded into the rest of the picture - but some of those shots actually turned out more interesting as a result of the impressive yet not purposeful sunstar.

So, Canon Rumors members... Who can impress me with some bombastic sunstars from this lens?
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 09:37:40 AM by Ruined »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
« Reply #59 on: September 02, 2014, 09:30:49 AM »