16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
- Thread starter Ivan Muller
- Start date
All these glowing reviews of the 16-35F4 L IS are making me want to upgrade my 16-35F2.8 L II. I've a friend who wants to take it off my hands so it would be an easy swap, but I really like the F2.8 for stars and I'd rather not have the added weight of IS that I don't use with a tripod.
Has anyone heard of a mark III version of the 16-35F2.8L that brings the improved resolving power and sharper corners but without the aperture compromise?
Better yet, what happened to all those rumours of a 16-50 L zoom from a few years back? That would be an excellent range for me provided the wide end held its own with the best-in-class. I could do wide angle single shot landscapes at 16mm, then punch in tight to 50mm for stitched panos all without a lens swap - very handy when you're being hit by ocean swell or blown off the top of a peak.
Has anyone heard of a mark III version of the 16-35F2.8L that brings the improved resolving power and sharper corners but without the aperture compromise?
Better yet, what happened to all those rumours of a 16-50 L zoom from a few years back? That would be an excellent range for me provided the wide end held its own with the best-in-class. I could do wide angle single shot landscapes at 16mm, then punch in tight to 50mm for stitched panos all without a lens swap - very handy when you're being hit by ocean swell or blown off the top of a peak.
Upvote
0
Chockstone said:
The new 16-35 f4L isn't even a year old yet. I wouldn't hold my breath on the MkIII of the 2.8 unless they just add IS to it. Honestly I don't miss the extra stop one bit in part because of the excellent IS. Now for astro, yeah, I get it. I does make a difference. Consider ditching your mark II, getting a copy of the new f4 IS and perhaps adding a 24mm prime for astro. Might I suggest the new Sig ART 24mm f1.4? If ever start doing astro seriously, that's the lens I'm going to. The 35 and 50 ART versions are just amazing. ROkinon has a great one too at 1.4. Manual focus, but if it's for astro, who cares.
Upvote
0
I've never felt 100% happy with my 16-35 f/2.8L MkII. It's fine I guess, no better stopped down than my old 17-40 f/4 which I might just as well have kept.
Photographers in this thread who have gone from the 16-35 f/2.8L MkII to the 16-35 f/4is seem happy enough. Is it just a case of validating a latest purchase or does the new lens seriously leave the 16-35 f/2.8L MkII gasping for respectability?
-pw
Photographers in this thread who have gone from the 16-35 f/2.8L MkII to the 16-35 f/4is seem happy enough. Is it just a case of validating a latest purchase or does the new lens seriously leave the 16-35 f/2.8L MkII gasping for respectability?
-pw
Upvote
0
pwp said:
It's pretty serious, yeah. Center frame, we can debate. But corners? No. It's not even remotely arguable. And being a wide, it's a focal range used largely for landscape photography and thus demands the best edge to edge you can get. That said, I find when shooting landscapes, you're stopping down to f8-ish or smaller anyway so who cares about 2.8 vs 4. That said, I have repeatedly shot this glass wide open at f4 and the results are just amazing regardless. If you have the need and the means, get the lens. You won't be disappointed or find yourself in a pixel peeping quandary over this vs the 2.8 MkII
Upvote
0
And I'll add this:
I have taken comparison shots with this one at 35mm against my 35 Sig ART prime, both at f4. I'll be damned if I can really find much difference. Granted the Sig is a different lens for a different purpose with 3 extra stops, but when apples to apples, the new 16-35 is crazy good
I have taken comparison shots with this one at 35mm against my 35 Sig ART prime, both at f4. I'll be damned if I can really find much difference. Granted the Sig is a different lens for a different purpose with 3 extra stops, but when apples to apples, the new 16-35 is crazy good
Upvote
0
Thanks all, I hope to get a good copy soon! My intention with upgrading from the 17-40 is because I want to get the new nifty fifty when its release and I release that for that to make any sense I need the best lenses. My weak point so far has been the 17-40...so I am off now to test again....the 40. 85f1.8. 24tS, 100macro and 70-300L are all very nice and sharp so I am sure they will work fine with the fifty. I am probably more picky than most but I do photography for a living and I also have a 44inch printer so image quality is very important for me...BTW I tested 3-4 copies of the 24TS before I was sort of happy. The dealer is very well known and respected over here and have been quite accommodating so far....so we will see
Upvote
0
I had 17-40mm F4, used it for almost 5 years, was satisfied with it and thought an upgrade wouldn't justify the extra cash. I heard about the 16-35mm F4 IS and it's good review and decided to buy it. After buying it and trying it, all I could say was, WOW and WHY didn't upgrade earlier. The glass is great, sharp and produces fantastic images! 
Attachments
Upvote
0
Good to hear, sounds like you've just been extremely unlucky.
I'm assuming you mean the new 50MP 5DS camera's when they are released (not nifty fifty 50mm lens). I've got four zoom L lenses the 16-35 f4, 17-40mm f4, 24-105mm f4 and 70-300 f4-5.6. The 16-35 f4 is the only one that i'm true confidence in, to handle the increased resolution. It's that good a lens, time will tell.
Upvote
0
bitm2007 said:
Will you be keeping the 17-40 or has the 16-35 f/4 made that redundant?
I must say that the 16-35 f/4 is getting a lot of praise, I think I will get one for myself next month.
Upvote
0
Hey all,
From all of the + reception I too am thinking of upgrading,-replacing the 17-40 4L, but two things stop me:
1. My 24 1.4 covers the event/low-light/art photography;
2. When going wide and not using the 24 1.4, I am on a tripod stopped down and the 17-40 is fine (and has goes all the way to 40mm!).
So the only time I would consider it is if the "16-35F4 L IS" replaced the 24 1.4 too? And in my book it does not. However, if I didn't already own the 17-40 first, I would definitely get the 16-35 IS over canon's other wide zooms.
P.S. Donn, that lovely picture of Bergen could almost be taken from my living room window! Whenever I am on my fjellveien jog (often at night) this city feels even more special than it already is.
From all of the + reception I too am thinking of upgrading,-replacing the 17-40 4L, but two things stop me:
1. My 24 1.4 covers the event/low-light/art photography;
2. When going wide and not using the 24 1.4, I am on a tripod stopped down and the 17-40 is fine (and has goes all the way to 40mm!).
So the only time I would consider it is if the "16-35F4 L IS" replaced the 24 1.4 too? And in my book it does not. However, if I didn't already own the 17-40 first, I would definitely get the 16-35 IS over canon's other wide zooms.
P.S. Donn, that lovely picture of Bergen could almost be taken from my living room window! Whenever I am on my fjellveien jog (often at night) this city feels even more special than it already is.
Upvote
0
bitm2007 said:
Thanks, I thought you might say that. Will definitely be getting a 16-35 f/4 now.
Upvote
0
Nothing to hate about Bergen except for Brann. I thought the 17-40mm was fine stopped down on a tripod, until I purchased the 16-35mm and released how much sharper it is (especially in the corners).
I would upgrade the 17-40mm and keep 24 1.4 for event/low-light/art photography. Then sell the 17-40mm on ebay etc.
Upvote
0
JDS said:Can anyone please post sunburst shots of the 16-35 F4 at f16 or f22? I want to see how it stacks up to that of the 2.8 II version
I love a good starburst, and this lens does not disappoint:
Ice Ridge II by colin|whittaker, on Flickr
Even at f/11 it gives nice bursts (look to the lamp on the right):
Untitled by colin|whittaker, on Flickr
Upvote
0
With the exception of one post who got a dud, everyone who replied to this thread has given it a glowing reference. So I doubt you will be disappointed.
I read numerous glowing website reviews before purchasing and found sites like lens tips, who test lenses at varying apertures and focal lengths extremely useful. Links to their resolution charts for both the 16-35mm f4 and 17-40m f4 are below.
http://www.lenstip.com/411.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html
http://www.lenstip.com/4.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_17-40_mm_f_4.0L_USM_Image_resolution.html
Upvote
0
Coldhands said:JDS said:Can anyone please post sunburst shots of the 16-35 F4 at f16 or f22? I want to see how it stacks up to that of the 2.8 II version
I love a good starburst, and this lens does not disappoint:
Ice Ridge II by colin|whittaker, on Flickr
Even at f/11 it gives nice bursts (look to the lamp on the right):
Untitled by colin|whittaker, on Flickr
Great shots! Thanks for posting these, I think I've now made up my mind to get this lens.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
