16-35F4 L IS, Any good?

[Ivan Muller]

hi, I am keen to get the 16-35F4L zoom as a replacement for my 17-40. I have tested two copies from the store and this is what I get.

copy One, distant image of building slight softness at all apertures on left 20% compared to the right side....

Copy Two, distant image of building very definite softness on right side , sharp objects almost have a double image at all apertures , right 20% of image.

I have done numerous tests etc, copy one seems almost fine, especially compared to copy Two. I am reluctant to take it and then take it to service center and then being told that it is within specs. I have already paid for the lens but don't want to take it out of the shop until I am satisfied.

So my answer is how are owners of this lens finding them? Any other problems. I am talking about critical professional use...

 

[gwflauto]

My 16-35/4 lens is excellent, from center to corner and edges, with architecture and indoors shots as well.

 

[Eldar]

I have had a couple of 17-40 copies and I have had several of both the 16-35 f2.8L vI and vII. I never liked any of them. But the 16-35 f4L IS I have is simply brilliant. I actually sold my Zeiss 21mm f2.8, because the 16-35 f4L IS made it redundant. I have not heard anything but praise for this lens, so if you're not happy with the two copies you have seen, it must be something wrong somewhere in the chain.

 

[Viggo]

I haven't tested mine extensively yet, but decentering is always one of the first thing a after calibration I check, and it is perfect.

And just as a side note, I thought the TS17 was as good as it gets, but the 1635 is better. I was really surprised to see how little distortion it actually has. And the sharpness is epic across the frame.

 

[mackguyver]

I did a lot of tests with mine and it was perfect out of the box. I think it's an excellent lens.

 

[TeT]

hi, I am keen to get the 16-35F4L zoom as a replacement for my 17-40. I have tested two copies from the store and this is what I get.

copy One, distant image of building slight softness at all apertures on left 20% compared to the right side....

Copy Two, distant image of building very definite softness on right side , sharp objects almost have a double image at all apertures , right 20% of image.

I have done numerous tests etc, copy one seems almost fine, especially compared to copy Two. I am reluctant to take it and then take it to service center and then being told that it is within specs. I have already paid for the lens but don't want to take it out of the shop until I am satisfied.

So my answer is how are owners of this lens finding them? Any other problems. I am talking about critical professional use...

Take neither of those copies If you are buying new.

Used, make sure they are cheap enough to cover the $400 hit from CPS (<$600)

 

[krisbell]

I find it to be an excellent lens - its way sharper than my 100mm macro, though my macro has been dropped a few times! My copy worked great straight out the box so you have either been incredibly unlucky with your two copies or you have hawk-like vision to spot inconsistencies.

 

[bitm2007]

I've recently upgraded from the 17-40 L to the 16-35mm L and am delighted with the image quality of my new lens, there's an obvious sharpness differential between the two lens especially in the corners. My only gripe is that it looks cheap compared to the 17-40mm L and my 24-105mm L, due to it's larger rubber focusing and zoom rings, but if lenses visual appearance is the only thing to grumble about i'm onto a winner.

 

[bitm2007]

hi, I am keen to get the 16-35F4L zoom as a replacement for my 17-40. I have tested two copies from the store and this is what I get.

copy One, distant image of building slight softness at all apertures on left 20% compared to the right side....

Copy Two, distant image of building very definite softness on right side , sharp objects almost have a double image at all apertures , right 20% of image.

I have done numerous tests etc, copy one seems almost fine, especially compared to copy Two. I am reluctant to take it and then take it to service center and then being told that it is within specs. I have already paid for the lens but don't want to take it out of the shop until I am satisfied.

So my answer is how are owners of this lens finding them? Any other problems. I am talking about critical professional use...

To test two defective lenses with different faults is strange, very strange. The testament to the quality and consistency of this lens is pretty much unanimous across the web. I would purchase from a different stockist, it might cost a little more but it's worth it, if it means purchasing from a reputable dealer. Even if it's just for the piece of mind.

 

[Otter]

I would definitely recommend the 16-35F4 L! It would be a solid step up from your 17-40. Great out of the box!

 

[mangobutter]

I've been a wide angle fanatic since I've been shooting Canon DSLRs since 2005 including owning the original 5D. I've had around a dozen copies of the 17-40L (always buying/selling) I've had the 16-35 2.8II. Now the 16-35 F4.

The 16-35 F4L IS has no equal in the world particularly in the 16-24mm range, regardless of price and/or brand and/or format and/or type (zoom/prime)--yes this includes the Nikon 14-24. Even if the Nikon 14-24 can get as sharp stopped down, this lens is a perfectionist @ F4 esp @ 16mm. Canon obviously optimized this lens for F4 performance. I don't find any improvements stopping down. even beyond 24mm it is great. There is a nice contrast difference between it and other high end lenses. Blacks are blacker.

Here's one at 16mm F4, 1/10s, 2000 iso. dark church. I have it printed and at it's very sharp even at full res.

 

[Aichbus]

My second copy is excellent, but my first was very soft at one side too, so obviously there are bad copies around even of this lens!

 

[SPL]

I have had a couple of 17-40 copies and I have had several of both the 16-35 f2.8L vI and vII. I never liked any of them. But the 16-35 f4L IS I have is simply brilliant. I actually sold my Zeiss 21mm f2.8, because the 16-35 f4L IS made it redundant. I have not heard anything but praise for this lens, so if you're not happy with the two copies you have seen, it must be something wrong somewhere in the chain.

+1!
I also upgraded from the 17-40, which I used for many years. My copy of the 16-35 is fantastic straight out of the box….fantastic lens!

 

[RLPhoto]

Any good?

It's Really Good. So good I see the 14-24mm nikkor as a m00t swithcing point now. Roger Circla also agrees that the 14-24mm seems alot less attractive now.

 

[FEBS]

No, the 16-35 F/4 L IS is a great lens. Really the best purchase last year.

I even think now to sell my 14 f/2.8 Lii and 24 f/1.4 Lii. Don't use those lenses anymore after I got the 16-35 f/4

 

[mangobutter]

Agreed. The 24 1.4 formula seems to be a VERY specialized need type of lens. i'd say concerts, events etc where its low light. a 35 1.4 is more useful and i'd have one of those along side the 16-35 F4 (going to order my 2nd Sigma 35 soon) and this time don't sell it.. haha

 

[PureClassA]

16-35 L is a superb lens corner to corner. Was amazed how good it was when I took it on a Disney trip late last year. It almost never left the 6D the entire time unless I needed the 70-200 IS MkII, which the 16-35 f4L is an equal to at one stop slower. If you need a wide, then this is the best you can buy. The 11-24 L looks like it will be great, but I doubt it will be optically any better than the 16-35 f4, You'll just have much bigger FOV.

 

[privatebydesign]

Have to agree with everybody so far, it is a superb lens, it has better contrast and colour in the corners than the 17TS-E.

Do a simple test like the one below, take some time to square off your camera to the targets, I stick a small mirror on the glass and line up the reflection. If there is much deviation in corner performance than don't get it.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

I was never truly satisfied with the 16-35 2.8 II, but the f4 version is noticeably better, particularly off-center. Not perfect, still some corner softness at 16mm - but apart from the loss of a stop, it's better in practically every other way. Not to mention the price is quite reasonable (by L standards). Highly recommended.

 

[tgara]

My copy is outstanding.....