Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...

[mackguyver]

I'm also interested in the 17-40 performance in the f8-16 range as I like its price (can get an almost new one for $600 vs the $1200 plus tax of the 16-35). I also prefer lighter and smaller, and I have steady hands (or a tripod). Any reason I shouldn't buy it?

I've had 17-40L for about three years. That lens is ofter underrated for its soft corners at wide open 17mm end. But at f/8-f/11, those corners are acceptable. The new 16-35L is not just about sharpness, but also about microcontrast and colours. It's actually very comparable to the 24-70/2.8L II in terms of "punchiness" I barely have to postprocess the files with that lens, 17-40L always needed some more to get to that impactful look.

Exactly. The contrast and color of the 16-35 f/4 IS and 24-70 f/2.8 II are exceptional and why many have described the 24-70 f/2.8 II as being like a Prime. The 16-35 f/4 IS photos have that exact same character. This is visible in the comparison shots I've taken and these lenses top the TS-E 17 & 24 in that regard, which is saying a lot. The lack of CA also makes a big difference for those shooting landscapes and architecture with intricate detail (leaves & branches, windows, bricks, etc.) when you process the photos.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

I'm also interested in the 17-40 performance in the f8-16 range as I like its price (can get an almost new one for $600 vs the $1200 plus tax of the 16-35). I also prefer lighter and smaller, and I have steady hands (or a tripod). Any reason I shouldn't buy it?

I've had 17-40L for about three years. That lens is ofter underrated for its soft corners at wide open 17mm end. But at f/8-f/11, those corners are acceptable. The new 16-35L is not just about sharpness, but also about microcontrast and colours. It's actually very comparable to the 24-70/2.8L II in terms of "punchiness" I barely have to postprocess the files with that lens, 17-40L always needed some more to get to that impactful look.

Exactly. The contrast and color of the 16-35 f/4 IS and 24-70 f/2.8 II are exceptional and why many have described the 24-70 f/2.8 II as being like a Prime. The 16-35 f/4 IS photos have that exact same character. This is visible in the comparison shots I've taken and these lenses top the TS-E 17 & 24 in that regard, which is saying a lot. The lack of CA also makes a big difference for those shooting landscapes and architecture with intricate detail (leaves & branches, windows, bricks, etc.) when you process the photos.

These are important factors. I have the Voigtlander 20, and it's a great little lens but I do have to stop it down and then I have to be careful of field curvature but I've gotten great shots. I think if I'm going to invest in the convenience of a zoom, and also want best possible quality, I will hold out for the 16-35.

 

[ahsanford]

+1. The tests by lensrentals.com are more objective and representative than any other tests considering their larger sample size, and Roger uses some cool instruments that the DxO guys probably never heard of.

Of course, I trust Roger Cicala more than anyone. He has better tools and widely is accepted as a very neutral opinion, bias-free guy.

But I do miss the basic old test reports there. I really liked his simple center, border, corner sharpness results. The new lens-only system is impressive, but it's two levels deeper information than I can quickly process. I'm concerned that LR will turn into a very cool but not-very-accessible place for optics nerds to get lost in minutiae.

- A

 

[NancyP]

Yeah, Roger has the best toys, without a doubt. Great second career for an anesthesiologist.

 

[chrysoberyl]

There is a dramatic difference between the flare shown on the TDP site and the Lenstip site. I would not expect that much variation between different copies of this lens. I have noted Mackguyver's flare observation; has anyone else checked flare?

 

[mackguyver]

There is a dramatic difference between the flare shown on the TDP site and the Lenstip site. I would not expect that much variation between different copies of this lens. I have noted Mackguyver's flare observation; has anyone else checked flare?

I noticed that, too, and was quite surprised by their results. As I have posted before, I find the flare resistance to be far better than the f/2.8 II lens. I have taken a number of other backlit shots since my original test and I stand by that claim. I'm curious to hear what others think, too, though.

 

[candc]

i haven't noticed flaring as a problem with the lens. you will get it if you shoot directly into the midday sun but sometimes you want that. this one shows it but i think its probably more due to the smeared polarizer i had on the lens than the lens itself

 

[mwh1964]

It is an amazing lens no doubt. I would suggest getting it over the older lenses. I did but again I upgraded from the venerable 20-35.