Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

mackguyver

EOS 5D SR
Ruined said:
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?
Ruined, the first post in this thread shows a sunstar comparison between this lens and the TS-E 17 f/4...but the links were broken until just now.

Also, I agree with the post processing - if you look at the last shot I posted, it would have been a CA nightmare with the 16-35 f/2.8 or 17-40, but with this lens, there was hardly any CA to remove. The big deal with that is that I exposed to the right to get the highlights, so the shadows had to be punched up quite a bit. With other lenses, I would get some nasty artifacts around the highlight edges from the removed CA.

The vignetting and distortion are a bit higher than I'd like at 16mm, but DxO & ACR handle things quite well.

Overall, I'm very pleased with the lens, though I have yet to make much use of the IS.
 

Ruined

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 22, 2013
796
0
mackguyver said:
Ruined said:
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?
Ruined, the first post in this thread shows a sunstar comparison between this lens and the TS-E 17 f/4...but the links were broken until just now.

Also, I agree with the post processing - if you look at the last shot I posted, it would have been a CA nightmare with the 16-35 f/2.8 or 17-40, but with this lens, there was hardly any CA to remove. The big deal with that is that I exposed to the right to get the highlights, so the shadows had to be punched up quite a bit. With other lenses, I would get some nasty artifacts around the highlight edges from the removed CA.

The vignetting and distortion are a bit higher than I'd like at 16mm, but DxO & ACR handle things quite well.

Overall, I'm very pleased with the lens, though I have yet to make much use of the IS.
Hey mack,
Links still appear broken to me except one sunstar shot (#8520). Not sure if that is the 16-35 or not - thx.

FYI I did end up selling my 16-35mm f/2.8L II for one reason - I went through all of my work and found that if I needed the light of f/2.8, I recently have been using the 24L I got not too long ago as it can do f/1.4. While f/2.8 was still very useful at 35mm for subject isolation, now that I have the 24L I would generally use the 24L + 50L or 70-200 before using the 16-35.

I am having trouble deciding what will be best for my photography next; looking at 8-15mm f/4L, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 85mm f/1.2L, and EOS 7D2. All of these things will help in some way or another, but I am having difficulty deciding what will give best bang for buck.

-(good chance) 8-15mm f/4L: I don't have a fisheye lens, and while it would not be a frequent lens to use I would like to have the capability for one or two unique shots during an event. I have seen some very effective church shots using fisheye 15mm. While the 8mm circular fisheye look can be gimmicky, I think it would also be something I'd like to use at times.

-(probably not) 16-35mm f/4L IS: I no longer have any lens below 24mm, and while I rarely dip below 24mm again I would like to have some coverage for landscape shots. But, since this is not something I would use much for event photography it is not a priority, and I could always experiment with the 8-15mm and see what 2015 brings in UWA.

-(maybe) 85mm f/1.2L II: Always on my want list, I am still not 100% sold on this lens. I am sold on the output, but the extending focusing barrel that requires power, slow autofocus, lack of sealing, precarious rear element - every time I get close to buying I can picture myself grabbing my 50L or 70-200L instead simply because they seem to be less fragile. I do a lot of indoors events but also outdoors events (where there is dirt, fumes, etc) & portraiture, and the 85L f/1.2L II really does not look like it is designed for usage in the elements (not even talking rain, just wind/dust/dirt, bumps, bangs etc). I am finding myself wishing Canon's next version of this lens is a complete redesign similar to what they did with the 50mm f/1.0L > 50mm f/1.2L - I realize the 85L II is a specialty lens but I think if they tweaked it to be a little more practical (maybe f/1.4) while still retaining the same portrait 'look' I'd get a whole lot more use out of it.

-(very good chance) EOS 7D2: For sports and reach-limited scenarios. Currently I have two EOS 6D cameras and the longest my lenses get is 200mm (sometimes shoot motorsports so not sure I'd want to give up f/2.8 for focus precision), so an EOS 7D2 would give two benefits - better autofocus for sports and improvements for reach limited scenarios which I find myself in sometimes. It is also nice when using primes to have the crop factor option. Main concern, or perhaps inevitability, is that it will be overpriced at launch and will have to wait until 2015 to get a good price. Of course, if Canon announces 5D4 and it has interchangeable focus screens, that will be more of a priority.
 

mackguyver

EOS 5D SR
Ruined said:
mackguyver said:
Ruined said:
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?
Ruined, the first post in this thread shows a sunstar comparison between this lens and the TS-E 17 f/4...but the links were broken until just now.

Also, I agree with the post processing - if you look at the last shot I posted, it would have been a CA nightmare with the 16-35 f/2.8 or 17-40, but with this lens, there was hardly any CA to remove. The big deal with that is that I exposed to the right to get the highlights, so the shadows had to be punched up quite a bit. With other lenses, I would get some nasty artifacts around the highlight edges from the removed CA.

The vignetting and distortion are a bit higher than I'd like at 16mm, but DxO & ACR handle things quite well.

Overall, I'm very pleased with the lens, though I have yet to make much use of the IS.
Hey mack,
Links still appear broken to me except one sunstar shot (#8520). Not sure if that is the 16-35 or not - thx.
Hmm, must be something with my site - I'll have to take another look at it tonight. The shot that's still showing is the 16-35 f/4 IS.
 

Ruined

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 22, 2013
796
0
mackguyver said:
Hmm, must be something with my site - I'll have to take another look at it tonight. The shot that's still showing is the 16-35 f/4 IS.
Ok, thanks - is that about as sharp as most sunstars are? What f-stop was this shot taken at? Thx again.
 

mackguyver

EOS 5D SR
Ruined said:
mackguyver said:
Hmm, must be something with my site - I'll have to take another look at it tonight. The shot that's still showing is the 16-35 f/4 IS.
Ok, thanks - is that about as sharp as most sunstars are? What f-stop was this shot taken at? Thx again.
It should be fixed now, and that shot was taken at f/16, specifically to check out the sunstar. Here's another example @f/16 & 24mm. Ugly photo, but again, it was just to test out the sunstar/flare resistance:

 

Eldar

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 14, 2013
3,250
7
www.flickr.com
I like this lens a lot and I would without hesitation choose this one over the f2.8L II any time. Despite all I have said about IS on UWA lenses in the past, I have actually enjoyed having it on this one. It more than compensates for the one stop disadvantage over its more costly brother.

This shows that the grapes in Provence is ripe and ready.

1DX, 1/400s, f4.0, ISO100, CPL

Comment: The colors in the web post is not right, but if you open it they are OK.
 

Attachments

candc

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 22, 2013
1,264
7
Wautoma, WI USA.
Phenix205 said:
Mt. Rainier. Wind was the main killer of image sharpness. IS helps a great deal without a tripod.
that's a nice photo of a beautiful place. i don't normally take a dslr on backcountry trips but i am taking this lens and a 6d for a canoe trip into killarney provincial park for a few days. hopefully i will get some good photos along the way.
 

Phenix205

EOS RP
Jun 9, 2012
202
0
Virginia
Thanks candc. Mt. Rainier is one of our favorite NPs. We stayed there for three days. On the first day, I was laughably crazy. I had my 5d3 + 16-35 IS + 24-70 II + 70-200 II mounted on EOS-M + 600RT + 7lb tripod + 1.5 lb ball head. Then I found out using tripod on narrow trails was just not possible. You would block others and getting off the trails was strongly discouraged because of increasing damage to the meadows.

The second day I only carried the 5d3 + 16-35 IS but still couldn't help dragging the 70-200 II along which was used for less than 50 shots of some deer and my kids. We did 6 miles of hiking on the Skyline Trail, half in the rain. I was amazed my 3.5 year-old daughter made the whole hike on her own. I also took lots of photos using my cellphone and S100, but the images out of the 5d3 were just gorgeous.

Enjoy your trip and look forward to seeing some of your photos.
 

Ruined

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 22, 2013
796
0
mackguyver said:
Ruined said:
mackguyver said:
Hmm, must be something with my site - I'll have to take another look at it tonight. The shot that's still showing is the 16-35 f/4 IS.
Ok, thanks - is that about as sharp as most sunstars are? What f-stop was this shot taken at? Thx again.
It should be fixed now, and that shot was taken at f/16, specifically to check out the sunstar. Here's another example @f/16 & 24mm. Ugly photo, but again, it was just to test out the sunstar/flare resistance:

Thanks for the pic Mack, it is nicely controlled but in these shots I do not see the punchiness of the 16-35 f/2.8L II sunburst (which has sharper/less diffuse rays). If Canon were to release a lens that could do rays as punchy as the 16-35 f/2.8L II, but as controlled as the 16-35 f/4L IS - now that would be awesome. I really love how commanding the sun looks in 16-35 f/2.8 II shots, however the uncontrolled nature of them (often extremely long) can be intrusive in pictures sometimes. I have to say for landscape in general, the 16-35 f/4L does look like the best bet for now!
 

mackguyver

EOS 5D SR
Ruined said:
Thanks for the pic Mack, it is nicely controlled but in these shots I do not see the punchiness of the 16-35 f/2.8L II sunburst (which has sharper/less diffuse rays). If Canon were to release a lens that could do rays as punchy as the 16-35 f/2.8L II, but as controlled as the 16-35 f/4L IS - now that would be awesome. I really love how commanding the sun looks in 16-35 f/2.8 II shots, however the uncontrolled nature of them (often extremely long) can be intrusive in pictures sometimes. I have to say for landscape in general, the 16-35 f/4L does look like the best bet for now!
No problem and I haven't had enough time to get a good feel for the lens, but I think it will give some nice sunbursts with time & practice. Assuming the 24-70 f/2.8 II is pretty similar, I've been able to get some nice effects with it, particularly for cityscapes with night lighting.

The only other option might be the EF-M 11-22 IS, which has a similar design but with fewer aperture blades. That might be that sweet spot of dramatic, yet controlled sunburst. I've had one for a little over a week now, but haven't had a chance to test it out yet. I'll update you as I have time to shoot with it and the 16-35 f/4 IS of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valvebounce

Fotofanten

EOS T7i
Oct 5, 2011
54
0
I've just had my first outing with this lens, and I think it lives up to the hype. It fits like a glove in a Lowepro Toploader Zoom 50 AW on a 6D with L-plate on. The hood needs to be reversed though. I clip this onto the chest strap of my backpack using plastic carabiners called Black Diamond Jivewire in size L. Good for hiking as it shifts some weight to the front of the body and also give you really quick access to the camera at all times.
 

Ruined

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 22, 2013
796
0
mackguyver said:
Ruined said:
Thanks for the pic Mack, it is nicely controlled but in these shots I do not see the punchiness of the 16-35 f/2.8L II sunburst (which has sharper/less diffuse rays). If Canon were to release a lens that could do rays as punchy as the 16-35 f/2.8L II, but as controlled as the 16-35 f/4L IS - now that would be awesome. I really love how commanding the sun looks in 16-35 f/2.8 II shots, however the uncontrolled nature of them (often extremely long) can be intrusive in pictures sometimes. I have to say for landscape in general, the 16-35 f/4L does look like the best bet for now!
No problem and I haven't had enough time to get a good feel for the lens, but I think it will give some nice sunbursts with time & practice. Assuming the 24-70 f/2.8 II is pretty similar, I've been able to get some nice effects with it, particularly for cityscapes with night lighting.

The only other option might be the EF-M 11-22 IS, which has a similar design but with fewer aperture blades. That might be that sweet spot of dramatic, yet controlled sunburst. I've had one for a little over a week now, but haven't had a chance to test it out yet. I'll update you as I have time to shoot with it and the 16-35 f/4 IS of course.
Yes, the sunstar looks remarkably similar, if almost identical to the 24-70 II. Its not a bad sunstar, and probably less distracting than the 16-35 II's, but it isn't quite as punchy as the 16-35 II's (meaning the rays are wider and more diffuse, rather than thinner and sharper).

Does the # of blades affect the sharpness/diffuseness of the rays? I thought that it only affected the number of rays, and that to get sharp rays you need straight aperture blades instead of curved. However, everything I've read about the 16-35 f/2.8 II seems to indicate it also has curved aperture blades, so I am not sure about this one.