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

[brad-man]

Yet another one. This is a side by side video review of stills taken with the new 16-35 compared against the Tokina 16-28 F/2.8:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT4vQZckk7Q

- A

Yup. I have the Tokina and it was, until now, sharper than Canon's offerings. But it's bigger, heavier, has that bulbous and difficult-to-filter front element, and doesn't handle flare nearly as well (unless you like that sort of thing). I also suspect the Canon is more effectively weather sealed, though this is pretty much a guess.

 

[ahsanford]

A fun unboxing video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpTaVMCpfvI

(Made by noneother than one of your fellow CR Forum dwellers! -- see his familiar icon below the video)

- A

 

[ahsanford]

A really long review video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db3GvPz6nbI

Note: it's in German, but he did do a number of side by side shots at similar settings with the 16-35 F/2.8L II and walked around his shots in comparison mode to show the virtues of the new lens. I have not watched it all, but you might find it helpful.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

Lets see. The trade off is 1 stop of ISO for sharp across the frame.

But wait, I thought:

Anyone that focuses on image quality always uses raw files at ISO 100 on tripod. Everything else is a compromise in one form or another.

Guess not.

Personally, I'll probably buy this lens. Seems like a bargain for shots where I control the lighting.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

...
which makes it all the more tricky to compare real world.

So it sounds like you've discovered why DxO use the methodology that they do.

Yes, it's also why I never much tried to post up real scenes in a scientific test manner before, it's tricky. I'm trying this time, but it's very tricky. I used charts and constant indoor lighting and general real world impression discussion and a few sample pics. It's hard to use tests for UWA though, at least for me, since I need to put the test chart awfully close to test edge performance in direct fashion, other choice is to rotate camera so edges face a distant test chart, that's not quite the same though and it doesn't tell as much about real world FC.

You still have to take great care with charts and constant lighting too though, as DxO seems to have not yet discovered though, or perhaps only very slowly discovering (see: 16-35 II having best corner performance at f/2.8, 70-200 2.8 II being the worst at 200mm f/2.8 of all the Canon 70-200 2.8s; 70-300 non-L having better 300mm performance than 70-300L and 300 f/4L, 24-70 f/4 IS supposedly having mediocre edges at 70mm; etc.).

 

[ahsanford]

...
which makes it all the more tricky to compare real world.

So it sounds like you've discovered why DxO use the methodology that they do.

Yes, it's also why I never tried to post up real scenes in a scientific test manner, it's tricky. I'm trying this time, but it's very tricky.

You still have to take great care with charts and constant lighting too though, as DxO seems to have not yet discovered though, or perhaps only very slowly discovering (see: 16-35 II having best corner performance at f/2.8, 70-200 2.8 II being the worst at 200mm f/2.8 of all the Canon 70-200 2.8s; 70-300 non-L having better 300mm performance than 70-300L and 300 f/4L, 24-70 f/4 IS supposedly having mediocre edges at 70mm; etc.).

Or you can do it the way TDP does it -- I believe Bryan Carnathan now shoots head to head comparisons simultaneously on separate bodies to ensure the light is the same.

Either way, lens testing is road to madness. I say rent before you buy and you'll never be upset.

- A

 

[wsheldon]

...
Either way, lens testing is road to madness. I say rent before you buy and you'll never be upset.

- A

Even that isn't a guarantee, given sample-to-sample variation in lenses and lens-body interactions. Check the LensRentals blog for some large sample-size comparisons of popular lenses to see how scattered they are in IQ and focus accuracy, e.g. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-perfect-lens

Bottom line is that imaging perfection is a unicorn chase, requiring lots of free time and money. Not to say that I'll stop reading these tests and lusting too

 

[mackguyver]

Here's another:
http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/#.U7Vjk0BUhI0

Summary:
Wow, not even close. Canon clearly has a winner with the new EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM lens. It holds details well in the extreme corners and it’s almost free of chromatic aberrations. It’s definitely worth the upgrade from the 17-40. While I don’t have a direct comparison to the 16-35mm f/2.8 II, I’ve used that lens in the past and found it about equal to the 17-40 in the mid range apertures. if you don’t need the extra 1 stop, the new EF 16-35mm is the way to go for an extreme wide angle zoom lens.

 

[ahsanford]

And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine. I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.

But the sample pictures I see do not give a ringing endorsement of sharper corners other than new lens has more useful corners at larger apertures.

So I looked at PZ's sharpness data, and my eyes may not fooling me after all:

@ F/4 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3342 2730 1073
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3482 2945 2195
16-35 F/4L IS: 3540 2826 2556

@ F/8 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3278 2896 2197
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3249 2882 2744
16-35 F/4L IS: 3390 3023 2766

@ F/11 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3012 2760 2577
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3000 2734 2669
16-35 F/4L IS: 3059 2796 2614

And, without transcribing it all, the relationship on the longest FL end is similar. PhotoZone only gave it a 3.5 star (out of five) for optical quality, and with the numbers above, I can see why.

So -- were we to assume this data is correct (remember, PZ only gets one copy of a lens) -- we might think that:

• The new lens will, in fact, not be sharper at the apertures landscape photographers shoot
• The new lens is sharper in the corners for more wide open apertures.

Do you folks buy this? For those who own the new 16-35 and either the old 16-35 or 17-40, have you had a similar experience?

- A

 

[ahsanford]

And Kai's classic adjective-laden review of the 16-35 F/4L IS:
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-16-35mm-f-4l/MjM5NzkyOTAy

- A

 

[digital-jesus]

And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine. I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.

But the sample pictures I see do not give a ringing endorsement of sharper corners other than new lens has more useful corners at larger apertures.

So I looked at PZ's sharpness data, and my eyes may not fooling me after all:

@ F/4 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3342 2730 1073
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3482 2945 2195
16-35 F/4L IS: 3540 2826 2556

@ F/8 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3278 2896 2197
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3249 2882 2744
16-35 F/4L IS: 3390 3023 2766

@ F/11 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3012 2760 2577
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3000 2734 2669
16-35 F/4L IS: 3059 2796 2614

And, without transcribing it all, the relationship on the longest FL end is similar. PhotoZone only gave it a 3.5 star (out of five) for optical quality, and with the numbers above, I can see why.

So -- were we to assume this data is correct (remember, PZ only gets one copy of a lens) -- we might think that:

• The new lens will, in fact, not be sharper at the apertures landscape photographers shoot
• The new lens is sharper in the corners for more wide open apertures.

Do you folks buy this? For those who own the new 16-35 and either the old 16-35 or 17-40, have you had a similar experience?

- A

You are 100% right. I came to the same conclusion, so I will continue with the 17-40.

 

[Ruined]

And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine. I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.

But the sample pictures I see do not give a ringing endorsement of sharper corners other than new lens has more useful corners at larger apertures.

So I looked at PZ's sharpness data, and my eyes may not fooling me after all:

@ F/4 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3342 2730 1073
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3482 2945 2195
16-35 F/4L IS: 3540 2826 2556

@ F/8 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3278 2896 2197
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3249 2882 2744
16-35 F/4L IS: 3390 3023 2766

@ F/11 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3012 2760 2577
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3000 2734 2669
16-35 F/4L IS: 3059 2796 2614

And, without transcribing it all, the relationship on the longest FL end is similar. PhotoZone only gave it a 3.5 star (out of five) for optical quality, and with the numbers above, I can see why.

So -- were we to assume this data is correct (remember, PZ only gets one copy of a lens) -- we might think that:

• The new lens will, in fact, not be sharper at the apertures landscape photographers shoot
• The new lens is sharper in the corners for more wide open apertures.

Do you folks buy this? For those who own the new 16-35 and either the old 16-35 or 17-40, have you had a similar experience?

- A

Hi,
I think photozone is accurate, their results match those of TDP.

Versus the 16-35mm f/2.8L II - I've been saying this since the 16-35mm f/4 IS came out. The main areas you see significant improvement is f/4-f/5.6, which is generally too narrow for events, but too wide for traditional landscape shots. f/8 has minimal improvement that likely would not be noticeable in real world use, and even in strict testing f/11 appears to be about the same in both. Plus, I actually like the 16-35mm f/2.8L II sunstars better than the new f/4 IS, which is subjective. So, in most cases I would recommend those who have the 16-35 f/2.8L II to hold on to it, unless you really truly definitely will never need f/2.8 - and also want that extra sharpness at f/4-f/5.6.

Versus the 17-40mm f/4 - I think there is a good case in upgrading to the 16-35 f/4 IS. While the 16-35 f/4 IS will not make you a better photographer, I think it does offer a noticeable improvement over the 17-40L at all apertures at f/8 or wider. Having that big improvement at f/8 is significant IMO, as f/8 is useful for landscape albeit a little wide. But, once again at f/11 it becomes very close - still the 16-35mm f/4 IS will be a better bet due to the new coatings which reduce flare. Also, sunstars on the 16-35mm f/4 IS appear superior to those on the 17-40 as another reason to upgrade, but again I don't feel either's competes with the 16-35 II f/2.8's sunstars.

 

[fugu82]

I am seriously considering trading in my 16-35II f/2.8 on the new f/4 IS, simply because the f/4 reportedly plays very nicely with IR [unlike the miserably awful 2.8 in IR]. I don't expect to miss that stop, and will get a dual-purpose UWA.

 

[Otter]

And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine. I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.

But the sample pictures I see do not give a ringing endorsement of sharper corners other than new lens has more useful corners at larger apertures.

So I looked at PZ's sharpness data, and my eyes may not fooling me after all:

@ F/4 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3342 2730 1073
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3482 2945 2195
16-35 F/4L IS: 3540 2826 2556

@ F/8 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3278 2896 2197
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3249 2882 2744
16-35 F/4L IS: 3390 3023 2766

@ F/11 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3012 2760 2577
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3000 2734 2669
16-35 F/4L IS: 3059 2796 2614

And, without transcribing it all, the relationship on the longest FL end is similar. PhotoZone only gave it a 3.5 star (out of five) for optical quality, and with the numbers above, I can see why.

So -- were we to assume this data is correct (remember, PZ only gets one copy of a lens) -- we might think that:

• The new lens will, in fact, not be sharper at the apertures landscape photographers shoot
• The new lens is sharper in the corners for more wide open apertures.

Do you folks buy this? For those who own the new 16-35 and either the old 16-35 or 17-40, have you had a similar experience?

- A

Numbers aside, if I look at a comparison of image quality between the 16-35mm 2.6 and F4 here :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

I find a noticeable difference in the mid and corners at F11, which tells my eyes not to trust the numbers.

 

[Ruined]

And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine. I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.

But the sample pictures I see do not give a ringing endorsement of sharper corners other than new lens has more useful corners at larger apertures.

So I looked at PZ's sharpness data, and my eyes may not fooling me after all:

@ F/4 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3342 2730 1073
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3482 2945 2195
16-35 F/4L IS: 3540 2826 2556

@ F/8 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3278 2896 2197
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3249 2882 2744
16-35 F/4L IS: 3390 3023 2766

@ F/11 @ Widest FL:
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3012 2760 2577
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3000 2734 2669
16-35 F/4L IS: 3059 2796 2614

And, without transcribing it all, the relationship on the longest FL end is similar. PhotoZone only gave it a 3.5 star (out of five) for optical quality, and with the numbers above, I can see why.

So -- were we to assume this data is correct (remember, PZ only gets one copy of a lens) -- we might think that:

• The new lens will, in fact, not be sharper at the apertures landscape photographers shoot
• The new lens is sharper in the corners for more wide open apertures.

Do you folks buy this? For those who own the new 16-35 and either the old 16-35 or 17-40, have you had a similar experience?

- A

Numbers aside, if I look at a comparison of image quality between the 16-35mm 2.6 and F4 here :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

I find a noticeable difference in the mid and corners at F11, which tells my eyes not to trust the numbers.

I disagree, the noticeable difference I see in the mid and corners at f/11 are CA, not sharpness. Of course, you can remove CA in post. f/4-f/5.6 are where there are truly noticeable sharpness differences in the corners.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.

 

[mackguyver]

Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.

I have compared it to my 24-70 II, 24L, TS-E 17, and TS-E 24 II and it's every bit as sharp as those lenses, with the exception of the TS-E 24 and the 24-70II @ 35mm. At f/11 they are all pretty close, though I'd give the 16-35 f/4 IS & 24-70II the edge in color and contrast. Really. The corners are MUCH sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8 II that I sold in part because CA is almost non-existent. Distortion isn't great at 16mm, but I'm sure DxO & Adobe will take care of that soon. The IS is very odd because you can't see the effect like you do with an unwieldy telephoto, but I think it will be a great travel/walkaround lens.

I'll put together the photos in the coming days (both brick wall & real-world shots) for everyone to take a look at.

 

[Ruined]

Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.

Photographers take amazing photos, not gear But, gear can make it easier...

 

[CanoKnight]

The IS is very odd because you can't see the effect like you do with an unwieldy telephoto, but I think it will be a great travel/walkaround lens.

The IS is for shooting video while handholding.

 

[Phenix205]

Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.

I have compared it to my 24-70 II, 24L, TS-E 17, and TS-E 24 II and it's every bit as sharp as those lenses, with the exception of the TS-E 24 and the 24-70II @ 35mm. At f/11 they are all pretty close, though I'd give the 16-35 f/4 IS & 24-70II the edge in color and contrast. Really. The corners are MUCH sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8 II that I sold in part because CA is almost non-existent. Distortion isn't great at 16mm, but I'm sure DxO & Adobe will take care of that soon. The IS is very odd because you can't see the effect like you do with an unwieldy telephoto, but I think it will be a great travel/walkaround lens.

I'll put together the photos in the coming days (both brick wall & real-world shots) for everyone to take a look at.

Really looking forward to your photos. I'm particularly interested in your comparison between the 16-35 4L and the 24 TS-E as I was seriously considering the latter before the former was announced. Thanks.