Canon 16-35 F4, how do you like it?

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,950
1,336
Canada
I have an opportunity to get a 16-35F4 that appears to be in perfect condition..... my question to the forum users is, how do you like it? Are there any other full frame wide angle zooms, including third party) that I should be looking at?

Thanks!
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,468
501
119
It is a fantastic lens. Unbelievable good value, very sharp and the IS is the icing on the cake. I regret selling mine but was seduced by the focal length of the 11-24.

Nothing comes close to it.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
2,957
330
Love it. I haven’t used mine much recently since I am more into longer FL stitched landscapes at the moment, but it’s a beautiful lens.
 
Reactions: stevelee

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,185
1,463
It's a great lens. I don't use mine too much, since most of my ultrawide shooting is travel/architecture and I bring the 11-24 and TS-E 17 (and a tripod) for that. I did get it after the 11-24, to have a more convenient at-home UWA zoom. IQ and AF are excellent, and it's an amazing value.
 
Reactions: stevelee
It's a great lens. I bought it to replace a Canon 17-40 f4L that I got cheap and had for a short time. That lens is good too but corners are soft (and no IS). The 16-35 f4 is sharp from edge to edge - I doubt any other lens in similar focal lengths can match it. The other one to take a close look at is Tamron 15-30 f2.8, which they have just announced will be updated with a G2 version later this Fall.

Like you, I looked to this forum for advice before choosing the 16-35 f4L IS. If you want to read the advice on that thread, it is here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/advice-16-35-f2-8-version-2-not-3-vs-16-35-f4-is.34296/
 
Reactions: nitram and stevelee

pwp

EOS 5D MK IV
Oct 25, 2010
2,518
12
I must have one of the rare under-performing copies. CPS tested it and said it was perfectly fine. At any aperture it's just that little bit soft. Reading the reviews when it was released, I thought at last, here's a strong performing UWA zoom. This was after a brilliant 17-40 f/4 bought new when they first shipped which I should never have sold, then a succession of three 16-35 f/2.8 II zooms which were all complete rubbish. Sigh....

As a result I've reluctantly evolved a shooting style that doesn't often go wider than 24mm with my stellar 24-70 f/2.8II.

I probably should cough up for a 16-35 f/2.8 III. Or take a chance with an off-brand UWA zoom. But which one?

-pw
 

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
845
198
In my mind, it is on the list of "epic" lenses that Canon has to offer. Great IQ, colors, and very useful range. IS works great, I've hand held shots at 16 mm at 1/2 second and even sporadic keepers at 1 sec. If 16 mm is wide enough and f/4 fast enough, it is a no-brainer. Great lens.
 
Reactions: nitram and stevelee

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,950
1,336
Canada
I must have one of the rare under-performing copies. CPS tested it and said it was perfectly fine. At any aperture it's just that little bit soft. Reading the reviews when it was released, I thought at last, here's a strong performing UWA zoom. This was after a brilliant 17-40 f/4 bought new when they first shipped which I should never have sold, then a succession of three 16-35 f/2.8 II zooms which were all complete rubbish. Sigh....

As a result I've reluctantly evolved a shooting style that doesn't often go wider than 24mm with my stellar 24-70 f/2.8II.

I probably should cough up for a 16-35 f/2.8 III. Or take a chance with an off-brand UWA zoom. But which one?

-pw
Are you talking about the 16-35 F4, or one of the F2.8 versions?
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
425
390
I have an opportunity to get a 16-35F4 that appears to be in perfect condition..... my question to the forum users is, how do you like it? Are there any other full frame wide angle zooms, including third party) that I should be looking at?

Thanks!
Even though I'm convinced the 16-35 f4 must be an excellent lens, mine sometimes showed a very strange behaviour.
Set on infinity, (Bryce National Park), the tree in front was tack-sharp, so were the distant mountains on the sides, but the distant middle of the landscape was really unsharp. I hope Canon can fix this issue...
In the meantime, I use my 21mm Zeiss and the EF 14mm II, which is quite good and lightweight, but far too expensive brand new. If I had to start anew, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the superb 2,8/16-35.
 

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
400
11
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
I must have one of the rare under-performing copies. CPS tested it and said it was perfectly fine. At any aperture it's just that little bit soft. Reading the reviews when it was released, I thought at last, here's a strong performing UWA zoom. This was after a brilliant 17-40 f/4 bought new when they first shipped which I should never have sold, then a succession of three 16-35 f/2.8 II zooms which were all complete rubbish. Sigh....

As a result I've reluctantly evolved a shooting style that doesn't often go wider than 24mm with my stellar 24-70 f/2.8II.

I probably should cough up for a 16-35 f/2.8 III. Or take a chance with an off-brand UWA zoom. But which one?

-pw

check your results against the digital pictures image quality results. Sen's work there is gold standard, i have tested every lens ive ever owned based on whats on that site. gold.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,036
162
Davidson, NC
After reading reviews and comments here, I decided that I would buy this lens for myself for my birthday in October. The only lens I had wider than 24mm was my 10–22mm EF-S lens, which I couldn't use on the 6D2.

A high school classmate died suddenly a few weeks back. I decided that given the uncertainties of life, it made no sense to wait until October, when I could afford it no more or less than in June. (Admittedly, I'll use it more when the weather cools off, and I go out taking pictures more often.)

The lens lives up to everything I was hoping for. At 16mm it does have a bit of vignetting that shows up in ACR with lens profile corrections turned off. I've not taken any killer pictures with it yet, really more like tests, but they look good even if not great works of art.
IMG_1129.jpg
IMG_1139.jpg
 
Reactions: nitram and Durf

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
351
302
www.flickr.com
I've been very satisfied with the lens. Really hard to complain about it's performance. I've looked to replace it with something faster and I've come to the conclusion that the 16-35 f/2.8L iii is the only other option that suits my needs (right now anyway). If I didn't need a filter thread, I'd be looking at Tamron's 15-30 G2 coming soon though - I had seen a lot of positive reviews of the first version so I'd be curious where they go with he G2.
 
Reactions: Randywayne

amorse

EOS RP
Jan 26, 2017
351
302
www.flickr.com
I must have one of the rare under-performing copies. CPS tested it and said it was perfectly fine. At any aperture it's just that little bit soft. Reading the reviews when it was released, I thought at last, here's a strong performing UWA zoom. This was after a brilliant 17-40 f/4 bought new when they first shipped which I should never have sold, then a succession of three 16-35 f/2.8 II zooms which were all complete rubbish. Sigh....

As a result I've reluctantly evolved a shooting style that doesn't often go wider than 24mm with my stellar 24-70 f/2.8II.
-pw
I had the reverse of that problem - bought a 24-70 f/2.8II, got it home, threw it on a tripod and found it softer than the 16-35 f/4 and my 24-105 f/4 at nearly all apertures. All manually focused photos with several replications of static subjects and it was clear to me that the 24-70 was not performing to my expectations (given its reputation). I returned it to the camera store the next day, told them it was soft and asked to swap for another lens, which they were willing to do. Took that one home and it's ahead of both the 24-105 and 16-35 now.
 
Reactions: nitram

Geek

EOS M50
Nov 18, 2014
46
6
I love the 16-35 f4 lens. I use a 24-105 f4 for my walk around lens, but for any critical shots I use either the 16-35 f4 or 70-200 f2.8. If its a good deal, go for it. You won't regret it.
 

Durf

Picture Taker - Image Maker
After reading reviews and comments here, I decided that I would buy this lens for myself for my birthday in October. The only lens I had wider than 24mm was my 10–22mm EF-S lens, which I couldn't use on the 6D2.

A high school classmate died suddenly a few weeks back. I decided that given the uncertainties of life, it made no sense to wait until October, when I could afford it no more or less than in June. (Admittedly, I'll use it more when the weather cools off, and I go out taking pictures more often.)

The lens lives up to everything I was hoping for. At 16mm it does have a bit of vignetting that shows up in ACR with lens profile corrections turned off. I've not taken any killer pictures with it yet, really more like tests, but they look good even if not great works of art.View attachment 179950View attachment 179951
It's a keeper for sure! I have never regretted buying it and use it a lot. It's also nice that it zooms inside of the lens barrel too, making it great for using filters and doing landscape work with; etc. My copy is very sharp all through the focal range at f/4, I shoot it mostly at f/8 or 11 though and it's extremely sharp at those apertures.
I never leave home without it! ;)
 
Reactions: stevelee

Hjalmarg1

Photo Hobbyist
Oct 8, 2013
770
3
48
Doha, Qatar
EF 16-35 f/4L IS is a terrific lens in all aspects, sharp corner-to-corner, lightweight, IS and weather sealed. I used it every time I have the opportunity to do so. If you don't need wider FL or faster aperture i.e. f/2.8 this is it.
My only regret is that I paid much more of what is being sold today but, you won't regret at all.
 
Reactions: stevelee