16-35F4 L IS, Any good?
- Thread starter Ivan Muller
- Start date
Don't think twice. I would definitely recommend the 16-35mm f/4L IS! It would be a solid step up from your 17-40. My copy is sharp edge-to-edge. By the way my body is a Canon 5D3
Upvote
0
mpphoto said:Here is an example at f/16. I think this will be my go-to lens for car shows.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 find the 16-35mm f/4 to be sharper at the edges than my 17-40mm. I enjoyed my 17-40mm, but now I have a hard time justifying keeping it. I thought I would miss the extra 5mm at the long end, but I don't. Now to sell my 17-40mm. Too bad it sounds like the prices have taken a hit since people are switching to the 16-35mm f/4.
Thanks for this. I also own the 17-40 right now and planning to get the 16-35 f4. I read somewhere that the build is not as robust as that of the 16-35 f2.8 version. Is this true?
Upvote
0
JDS said:mpphoto said:Here is an example at f/16. I think this will be my go-to lens for car shows.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 find the 16-35mm f/4 to be sharper at the edges than my 17-40mm. I enjoyed my 17-40mm, but now I have a hard time justifying keeping it. I thought I would miss the extra 5mm at the long end, but I don't. Now to sell my 17-40mm. Too bad it sounds like the prices have taken a hit since people are switching to the 16-35mm f/4.
Thanks for this. I also own the 17-40 right now and planning to get the 16-35 f4. I read somewhere that the build is not as robust as that of the 16-35 f2.8 version. Is this true?
My wife's 100 L, my 2470 and 1635 are all made of the same plastic, and they have seen some pretty bad abuse, see picture on previous page of my son. And none of these lenses are scarred at all.
And Roger at Lens Rentals said the new 16-35 in particular along with the 100-400 II are much better built than the previous 1635/1740 and the old 100-400.
So no, it's not true it's poorer built.
Upvote
0
e_honda said:
In what way? I'd venture my 16-35 f4 is every bit as robust, indeed more so, than my old 16-35 f2.8 ever was. Any empirical evidence to back up your hunches? Because this tear down seems to have the opposite opinion. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/of-course-we-took-one-apart
Upvote
0
AshtonNekolah
Time doesn't wait, Shoot Like It's Your Last.
no disrespect about this lens im sure its pretty good, but from reading all the pointers im sure they are honest opinions but I never saw this kind of feed back when the 17-40 vs the 16-35 2.8 most people praised the 16-35 2.8 even thous landscape photogs used f7 -f22 not really f2.8. maybe i missed something but all i see is just marketing hype and it could be just a mind thing. the 17-40 has always bin a pretty good landscape lens in it's class for the price.
Upvote
0
AshtonNekolah said:
From an image quality perspective the 16-35mm f4 L IS has set a new benchmark for ultra wide performance, zoom or prime.
I hate over the top sentiment and hyperbole that normally flows from people who are trying to mitigate their buyers remorse, I am also not a first adopter. Indeed I owned the 16-35 f2.8 MkI since it came out and when I tested it against a MkII I didn't see enough of a performance increase to upgrade.
When I got the 16-35 f4 L IS I immediately tested it against another world class Canon ultrawide, the 17 TS-E prime, the 16-35 f4 L IS blows the 17 TS-E away for resolution detail and contrast, the only thing it doesn't do as well (apart from tilt and shift, but it does zoom!) is distortion, but lets be honest, distortion in a centered projection is very simple to remove.
The 16-35 f4 L IS is the best performing ultrawide zoom made by anybody anywhere at any price, it also outperforms most primes at the same focal lengths. Now the new 11-24 might go to 11 better, and it's performance is on a par with the 16-35 f4 L IS at 24mm, but even $3,000 doesn't buy you 'better' image quality.
Upvote
0
I haven't read through the entire thread so I apologize if I am repeating what has been posted. Pretty much everyone who uses the lens for what it is designed for loves it. It's sharp wide open, It has "is" which is great for handholding water shots and such. It has great color and contrast. Its a very reasonable price so not much purchase justification needed and it takes filters. It is really a wonderful general purpose landscape lens.
Upvote
0
AshtonNekolah said:
I don't have bias, I just want the best lens for landscape and I think this right now is it.
I had 2 copies of the 16-35 f2.8 II. I coveted that lens for awhile, found a good deal on one, wasn't happy with the copy, and then found a better copy. I wanted to like it, but it just wasn't that good. I got a Tokina 16-28 brand new for far less money and sold the 16-36 II. It was easily sharper than the Canon. I used the Tokina for nearly 2 years and some of my best photos were taken with it.
But I wasn't happy with the flare/ghosting and its weight/bulbous front element made it unwieldy and it didn't take filters. So when the 16-35 F4 IS came out, I was immediately intrigued and pulled the trigger when I found a great deal.
This new Canon matches or slightly exceeds the Tokina in sharpness, has IS, is lighter and easier to handle and accepts filter. It cost more and isn't f2.8, but those are tradeoffs I'm willing to make for its advantages. I couldn't be happier.
If the new Tamron 15-30 proves to be better in anyway, then I will have to consider that as well because I love working with this focal range.
Upvote
0
IMO the 16-35 f/4L IS is the ultimate practical lens for someone who enjoys landscape photography. Yes, the 16-35 f/2.8L II is better for event photography and the 11-24 f/4L is wider for landscape but much more costly, huge, no IS, and can't take front filters.
So I think for most, the 16-35 f/4L IS simply makes the most sense as*the* landscape lens for most users. It is even great for real estate. As long as one of these is your primary usage the 16-35mm f/4L IS makes the most sense.
So I think for most, the 16-35 f/4L IS simply makes the most sense as*the* landscape lens for most users. It is even great for real estate. As long as one of these is your primary usage the 16-35mm f/4L IS makes the most sense.
Upvote
0
AshtonNekolah
Time doesn't wait, Shoot Like It's Your Last.
Thanks for that info, Ill have to rent a copy and check this out, I also like the TSE 17mm for keeping lines straight in buildings and for the shifting, do you guys think that is a good thing? Ill have to rent them both and see which one is for me.
Upvote
0
AshtonNekolah said:
It is, but a couple of downsides over 16-35 f/4L
-Cost
-Bulbous element more susceptible to damage
-No front filter support
-Only one focal length
-No IS
On the plus side, yes you can correct lines, etc - but then again that requires a tripod and intricate adjustments. Do you want to commit that much time to each shot?
Upvote
0
FEBS said:
I'd agree on the 14 f/2.8L II because the usage would be very niche when you have a 16-35 f/4L unless you *really* needed 14mm or f/2.8 at 14mm. But how often is that the case?
The 24 f/1.4L II I would reconsider though. While it is true the 16-35 f/4L likely bests it for landscape, the 24 f/1.4L II with its wide angle and wide aperture open up some commonly useful creative possibilities not possible on the 16-35 f/4L such as subject isolation or stopping motion in a tight space. And it is still possible to get a mostly undistorted people image at 24mm if you keep the subject near the center of the frame. If you don't feel those possibilities are worth $1200, on the other hand, it might be worth selling.
Personally though, I think the 16-35mm f/4L IS and the 24mm f/1.4L II actually make a great pair. 16-35 f/4L for landscape and 24 f/1.4L II for environmental portrait/wide motion stopping/shallow DOF.
Upvote
0
AshtonNekolah said:
I don't have a ts lens. You can do perspective correction with software. There is a benefit from being able to shift the focal plane but not enough of a benefit to justify all the fiddling to me. The ts-17 is pretty much tripod only, manual focus and it doesn't take normal filters.
Upvote
0
AshtonNekolah
Time doesn't wait, Shoot Like It's Your Last.
for the TSE 17mm I can get the proportions down pretty fast I dont mind the tripod at all, yes i saw the software correction but there is a draw back I also notice when I did some shots, if it was done with the TSE 17mm the big gaps will be corrected. Actually the software is mimicking the TSE Lens correction but being that wide angles dont shift like that there will be gaps. and Lee has a adapter filter for it, you guys could check it out, it's not cheep however but it's available on ebay. Ill see what goes when im done testing, if i do choose to get the TSE ill just keep what i got and get that instead. Thanks again for the replies.
Upvote
0
Has anyone tried this 16-35 f4 IS lens on an apsc camera? If so, how good is it on apsc? I've looked at image tested done by "the digital picture .com" where they did the lens image quality test using the 7d Mark ii and the images looked pretty damn good at all focal lengths tested. I know many will say consider the 17-55 for apsc, but I plan on moving to full frame in the summer and I want a lens in the range of 16-35 that I can use on both full frame and apsc. And I want to avoid the whole buy and sell thing as much as possible, as I have been very unsuccessful at every selling a lens. Please help as I am seriously considering buying this lens when my Canon rebate come in.
Upvote
0
AshtonNekolah said:
The Fotodiox Wonderpana system is a much better filter solution for the 17TS-E than the Lee system.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
