16-35mm f/4 test shots

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,982
737
Davidson, NC
I had intended to stop by Best Buy in recent weeks to see how their camera department is doing. Yesterday as I drove home from the funeral for a high school classmate who had died suddenly, I did stop. They seemed to be doing very well, with a good range of Canon lenses, as well as a lot of Sony and Nikon stuff, though I didn't really look at them.

A salesman who is very knowledgable and whom I have found to be trustworthy found me after I had been otherwise greeted. He and I caught up a bit about my experience with the 6D2 he sold me, as well as his developing photographic career. He was especially interested in my video experience.

I told him that I was considering the 16-35mm f/4, and he offered me some opinions about the f/2.8 model and the 17-40mm, the main Canon alternatives. He pretty well confirmed what I had read here and in reviews that indicated the f/4 lens would be my best choice. The extra stop of the 2.8 doesn't seem to be worth the extra money and weight for my purposes. He had used the f/4 around the store to document things for corporate, as they like having done periodically. He is considering buying the lens for himself, as he is about to get a real estate client. Since I shot some houses for a realtor a few years ago, we later discussed some of the issues involved.

But in the meantime, perhaps being more aware than usual of the brevity and uncertainties of life, I decided not to wait until October to buy the f/4 for my birthday.

After braving the Charlotte rush-hour traffic to get home, I was not inclined to go out into the 96-degree heat to try out the lens. After I got out of my good clothes, I dozed off for a bit, so it was getting dark outside by the time I got the lens out and put it on the camera. I made some test shots just sitting in my den. The light was a dim CFL in a floor lamp just behind my chair. For the following picture I zoomed out to 16mm and focused on the wing of the chair I was sitting in. The camera chose f/4 for 1/30 second at ISO 12,800. Below is the full frame reduced for posting and a 100% crop of the same shot. The forum software will likely blow them up further in your browser. I didn't do anything I can recall to it in ACR/Photoshop, and certainly didn't correct vignetting or reduce the noise from the high ISO. You can see the blue Best Buy bag on the table.

IMG_1100s.jpg


IMG_1100d2.jpg
 

ajfotofilmagem

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
2,382
83
Bahia Brazil
The fabric is not parallel to the camera sensor. To properly test a wide-angle lens, it is essential that the subject of the subject be flat and parallel to the camera's sensor.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,982
737
Davidson, NC
ajfotofilmagem said:
The fabric is not parallel to the camera sensor. To properly test a wide-angle lens, it is essential that the subject of the subject be flat and parallel to the camera's sensor.

True. It was just a lazy man's check to see if the lens was working, taking a picture of part of the chair I was sitting in. At your suggestion, I'll try something more rigorous. I wouldn't have thought about using the fabric for a test, but there is a lot of detail.
 

ajfotofilmagem

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
2,382
83
Bahia Brazil
To test for wide-angle lenses, I prefer to photograph a completely straight wall with an open newspaper sheet. Or I use four small newspaper sheets, all aligned in the four corners of the screen in Live View. Then I compare the sharpness in the four corners of the photo, and see if any of the four corners is less sharp than the others.
 

Durf

Picture Taker - Image Maker
This lens does have more distortion than say, my EF-S 10-18mm Lens. I've had to fix some cabinetry photos several times to "bend" them back to looking normal....
If I'm doing long runs of cabinetry pics I most often try to do them at 24mm or more as the distortion isn't so bad....when I'm down around 16mm I know I'm gonna have to fix them in post most of the time.

The price you pay when doing super wide angle shots with a lot of geometry and lines.

I totally prefer this 16-35 on my FF compared to my 10-18 on a crop. The 16-35 image quality is superb, just have to deal with the distortion around 16mm in post when doing architectural photography...
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,982
737
Davidson, NC
The shots I took of the whole room at 16mm showed very little distortion, that I noticed anyway. Perhaps by the time I saw the shots in ACR, there had been automatic corrections based on the profile. If I had made any serious pictures, I would have been more aware of these things, I guess.

The shots I did for a realtor using my 10-22mm EF-S lens were never at the widest, except maybe for a boy's bedroom that was hard to show otherwise. I find that the profiled-based corrections and some tweaking in ACR straighten things out rather well. At extremes, there can still be a sense of unreality. That can be a plus, but not desirable for real estate pictures.
 

Durf

Picture Taker - Image Maker
The only time I am really noticing it to where it needs to be fixed in post when doing interior home shots of long runs of cabinets or staircases etc., from 16mm to about 21mm.

It all depends on the angles and perspective your shooting from to but I'm sure you know this.

Regardless, I love the lens and will never get rid of it, an occasionally fix in post at the wide end is no biggy....

Also, its a superb lens for certain types of landscape shots too; I've got some amazing images with this lens.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,982
737
Davidson, NC
I don't anticipate any more work from realtors, particularly since I'm not looking for any. So my guess is that I will use it for landscapes and town/cityscapes.

My house was built before I got my first DSLR. I had a surprisingly decent Casio point-and-shoot. I took pictures of the progress of the house every time I came over this way during construction. My main frustration was trying to take a picture that showed most of the spacious master bath. This is the best I did, near the end of construction, not showing the commode to the right or the shower stall to the left:

12260001.jpg


I note a lot of distortion on the closet door frame on the left. I don't recall whether this was stitched together. I'd do a better job of this now, even with the old camera.

I know I stitched some shots together to get the interior of the garage:

1219garage.jpg


Some time I'll look at both the bathroom and garage through the 16mm lens to see how that would have turned out had I had the equipment then.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,982
737
Davidson, NC
That's very nice. The vertical convergence would clean up very easily in ACR or Lightroom.

Until I posted the bathroom picture, I had forgotten that they originally put a gold-colored (brass maybe?) towel bar behind the tub. The builder of course swapped it out to match the rest of the fixtures.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,998
4,781
Durf said:
Here's a shot I took at 16mm, 1/8 of a second at f/8 ISO 100.

You can see a little distortion, especially on the left side of the image....

That is not a lens aberration (lens distortion), it is a projection issue that was created because the camera was not level. Any decent processing software, DPP, Lightroom, Photoshop, etc etc all have lens distortion correction profiles built in that easily correct for the actual lens distortions at all individual focal lengths, they also correct for vignetting if you want them to.

Keep the camera level and the 16-35 has a bit of barrel distortion below 20mm but after 24 is a very solid lens.

https://www.lenstip.com/411.6-Lens_review-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Distortion.html

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&FLIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&FLI=4
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,998
4,781
Durf said:
Camera was actually leveled on a tripod, every shot I took that day was on a tripod and leveled....

You have a problem with your leveling equipment then because the camera was not level, if it was the vertical lines would be vertical but have a slight bow outwards from 16-20 mm.

Picture one, the red lines illustrate the fact that your camera could not be level, if it was the two lines would be parallel they would not converge.

Picture two shows what the image would look like if the camera was level.

Picture three is with the camera leveled and the appropriate lens correction profile applied.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    292.6 KB · Views: 73
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    283.2 KB · Views: 70
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    283.2 KB · Views: 66

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,998
4,781
Durf said:
Thanks, I think I was using a cheap hot shoe bubble level that day, can't remember though. I do remember trying to get all the shots leveled the best I could, must of screwed up on this shot for sure.

You fixed it well! ;)

Yes I moved from a bubble level to learn to trust the electronic level in the camera, it isn't always precise but it is better than the bubble ever was :) I use a geared head too because it is the only way I have found to get the results I demand.

I didn't really fix it, I just pushed the buttons in PS!

All the best.
 

Durf

Picture Taker - Image Maker
privatebydesign said:
Durf said:
Thanks, I think I was using a cheap hot shoe bubble level that day, can't remember though. I do remember trying to get all the shots leveled the best I could, must of screwed up on this shot for sure.

You fixed it well! ;)

Yes I moved from a bubble level to learn to trust the electronic level in the camera, it isn't always precise but it is better than the bubble ever was :) I use a geared head too because it is the only way I have found to get the results I demand.

I didn't really fix it, I just pushed the buttons in PS!

All the best.

Thanks

I'm always using the in camera level now too....(lost my cheap bubble level!) LOL
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
1,982
737
Davidson, NC
The camera easily could have been level left to right, but it was apparently pointed up a bit, since you have vertical convergence.
 

Durf

Picture Taker - Image Maker
stevelee said:
The camera easily could have been level left to right, but it was apparently pointed up a bit, since you have vertical convergence.

I'm usually quite particular at keeping the camera level right to left no matter what I'm shooting. I'm positive I pointed up more though in order to get more of the beams and less of the foreground floor in many shots that day.
That lens is a bit tricky at 16mm.....
But hey, it just a picture of some cabinets. ;)
 
<-- start Taboola -->