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

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:

Leon_Sinks_Geological_Area_10713_ID-L.jpg
 
Upvote 0
candc said:
mackguyver said:
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 :)
 
Upvote 0
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?
 

Attachments

  • _D7T1549.jpg
    _D7T1549.jpg
    3.8 MB · Views: 581
Upvote 0
Eldar said:
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
 
Upvote 0
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?
 
Upvote 0
candc said:
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
 
Upvote 0

Khalai

In the absence of light, darknoise prevails...
May 13, 2014
714
0
39
Prague
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 :)
 

Attachments

  • HQ-0120.jpg
    HQ-0120.jpg
    4 MB · Views: 447
Upvote 0
candc said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
Jim Saunders said:
candc said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 22, 2013
932
60
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?
 
Upvote 0