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

[sanj]

For those testing the IS, are you half-pressing the shutter (or pressing AF-ON if you use BBF) and then letting the IS system operate for ~0.5 s to fully stabilize the image? I've often found that if you simply press the shutter on an IS lens, you get a shot that's not much better than no IS. Here are some tests I did with the 100L.

Thx much for this.

 

[ahsanford]

Neuro. Wow. Had no idea. My 5 shots were discrete shutter depressions, but they were in rapid succession.

Will check this out now.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

IS data re-run with Neuro's advice in mind. A solid 2s run-up with the IS was used for each shot.

New IS data below. Same non-IS data as before.

1) IS OFF at 16mm, I netted:

• 3 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
• 2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
• 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure

2) IS ON at 16mm, I netted:

• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
• 4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure
• 2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure
• 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure (two borderline ones were called 0.5 each)

3) IS OFF at 35mm, I netted:

• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
• 4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
• 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure

4) IS ON at 35mm, I netted:

• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
• 4.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
• 3.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
• 2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure
• 0.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)

I'll be damned. Neuro's trick shows 16mm IS is more like a 2 stop benefit, but the 35mm data only slightly improved (still around 3 stops).

Neuro, is this true with all IS lenses? That might imply sports guys with long glass never net as sharp a shot with the first frame in a long burst that they might get with the rest...

- A

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, is this true with all IS lenses? That might imply sports guys with long glass never net as sharp a shot with the first frame in a long burst that they might get with the rest...

Yes, although I think the MkII supertele lenses stabilize faster, and they have a Mode 3 that leaves the VF unstabilized until the shot it taken.

Many sports shooters (and me, for BIF) are using shutter speeds fast enough that IS is of no benefit anyway.

 

[bdunbar79]

IS data re-run with Neuro's advice in mind. A solid 2s run-up with the IS was used for each shot.

New IS data below. Same non-IS data as before.

1) IS OFF at 16mm, I netted:

• 3 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
• 2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
• 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure

2) IS ON at 16mm, I netted:

• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
• 4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure
• 2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure
• 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure (two borderline ones were called 0.5 each)

3) IS OFF at 35mm, I netted:

• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
• 4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
• 1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure

4) IS ON at 35mm, I netted:

• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
• 5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
• 4.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
• 3.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
• 2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure
• 0.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)

I'll be damned. Neuro's trick shows 16mm IS is more like a 2 stop benefit, but the 35mm data only slightly improved (still around 3 stops).

Neuro, is this true with all IS lenses? That might imply sports guys with long glass never net as sharp a shot with the first frame in a long burst that they might get with the rest...

- A

I use long superteles and shoot sports and I never use IS because my keeper rate is lower than with it off...exactly from what neuro stated. I didn't really think the 300 f/2.8L II IS speed or mode 3 helped vs. the version I lens either. IS certainly has it's places though, for sure.

 

[tron]

I got this lens yesterday

Now I need to go on vacation to test it (2 birds with one stone )

I just made a few internal test shots and the IS looks promising.

 

[mackguyver]

I got this lens yesterday

Now I need to go on vacation to test it (2 birds with one stone )

I just made a few internal test shots and the IS looks promising.

Congrats! I'm itching to get back out with mine, too...the weekend is getting closer at least.

 

[tron]

I got this lens yesterday

Now I need to go on vacation to test it (2 birds with one stone )

I just made a few internal test shots and the IS looks promising.

Congrats! I'm itching to get back out with mine, too...the weekend is getting closer at least.

Thanks I gave my EF24mm 2.8 (non IS) which was not being used and saved 250 Euros of the price (initial 1050) Now I want to see how it performs at the edges since I had sold my 16-35 2.8 version 1 for this very reason (plus the fact that it had coma).

It is interesting that it is as big and as heavy as my 16-35 2.8 was!

 

[mackguyver]

I got this lens yesterday

Now I need to go on vacation to test it (2 birds with one stone )

I just made a few internal test shots and the IS looks promising.

Congrats! I'm itching to get back out with mine, too...the weekend is getting closer at least.

Thanks I gave my EF24mm 2.8 (non IS) which was not being used and saved 250 Euros of the price (initial 1050) Now I want to see how it performs at the edges since I had sold my 16-35 2.8 version 1 for this very reason (plus the fact that it had coma).

It is interesting that it is as big and as heavy as my 16-35 2.8 was!

I'm certain you'll be pleased with the edge performance and the color and contrast is nearly identical to the 24-70 f/2.8 II based on my testing. The coma tests I've seen so far also show very good, though not perfect performance. I was a bit surprised by the size & weight, too, but I love that compact hood!

 

[Byte]

Bonjour,

Some IS example (5D3, handhold, IS, 16mm, Dpp jpeg 3, Standard style, 3000x2000):
1: 1/6s f/22 Iso 50. Polar filter (broken and too much polarized). I was quite out of breath...
2: 1/3s f/4 Iso 400

 

[mackguyver]

Here are a couple of additional reviews:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/129535/1/canon-ef-16-35mm-f-4l-is-usm-review

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/canon-lens-review/test-canon-16-35mm-f4

 

[mackguyver]

One of the big guys - LensTip - just completed their review - leaving DxOMark & SLRGear as the remaining major reviewers that haven't published their results:

http://www.lenstip.com/411.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Introduction.html

It's a mostly positive review - they fault the lens on vignetting (I agree) and flare resistance (I disagree based on my testing), but give it high marks across the board.

They also score it highly for coma, so it looks like (other than the aperture), this will be an excellent astrophotography lens, with coma correction very similar to the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

 

[tron]

So, the lens has truly negligible coma! What a dilemma. It is f/4. OK, I knew it when I bought it but now wmy 14mm 2/8 II will fight with the 16-35 for their night use ;D

 

[mackguyver]

So, the lens has truly negligible coma! What a dilemma. It is f/4. OK, I knew it when I bought it but now wmy 14mm 2/8 II will fight with the 16-35 for their night use ;D

I know f/4 is marginal, but at 16mm you can get away with longer exposures and since buying the TS-E 17 f/4, I've done some searching and have actually seen a lot of great astrophotography done with it on the 5DIII, 6D, and 1D X, so with the right body, I'm sure this lens will work well for night shots as well.

 

[tron]

I tried it to day. Practically ZERO coma! But it was dark. I was used to my 14mm 2.8L II even with a little coma. You see I was at my 5D3's limits (ISO 10000, 12800). So I reverted back to it. In fact I have just wondered if 16-35 4L IS why not the TS-E17mm 4L? It will also be able to fix the converging verticals...

 

[mackguyver]

I tried it to day. ZERO coma! But it was dark. I was used to my 14mm 2.8L II even with a little coma. You see I was at my 5D3's limits (ISO 10000, 12800). So I reverted back to it. In fact I have just wondered if 16-35 4L IS why not the TS-E17mm 4L? It will also be able to fix the converging verticals...

One reason why not is that the TS-E 17 costs about $1k more than the 16-35 f/4 IS I got mine as a refurb on sale, so it wasn't as bad for me, but I don't like in a very "dark" area, so I haven't tried my lenses with the stars yet.

 

[tron]

I tried it to day. ZERO coma! But it was dark. I was used to my 14mm 2.8L II even with a little coma. You see I was at my 5D3's limits (ISO 10000, 12800). So I reverted back to it. In fact I have just wondered if 16-35 4L IS why not the TS-E17mm 4L? It will also be able to fix the converging verticals...

One reason why not is that the TS-E 17 costs about $1k more than the 16-35 f/4 IS I got mine as a refurb on sale, so it wasn't as bad for me, but I don't like in a very "dark" area, so I haven't tried my lenses with the stars yet.

No! I haven't made myself clear. I should have said: I have the TS-E17 so why not use this?
So I used it too and I was able to fix the converging verticals at the expense of a darker photo though (relative to 14mm 2.8 II). The result was very satisfactory.

I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too. :-[

 

[Random Orbits]

I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too. :-[

I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. I have the same mix, and will have to rejigger the kit, but it will be substitutions and in some ways lead to a more compact kit. If it is a 14-24 f/2.8, that will replace the 14 and the Z21. And if it's a 16-35 f/2.8 III, then it'd replace the 16-35 f/4 and the Z21. The Z21's lack of AF limits its usability because I don't have the time do landscapes much, and I find the TS-Es to be more versatile. The Z21's focus confirmation is close to accurate on one side but the confirmed range is too wide and leads to OOF pics on the other...

 

[Loswr]

I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too. :-[

I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24.

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.

 

[mackguyver]

I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too. :-[

I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24.

The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.

They'll probably announce it at Photokina, just to be cruel...