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

[Random Orbits]

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.

I forgot how useful it was to have AF in the ultrawide range for a walk-around lens until I swapped the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS. Now, I look for reasons to use it. I use the 24-35mm range on it for about 1/3 of the shots I keep. It may not be as good as the 24-70 II, but it is still excellent and saves on a lot of lens changes and renders in a similarly pleasing way. I'd rather have the f/2.8 over the IS, but for now, I like the 16-35 f/4 IS a lot.

The 12/14-24 will likely not accept screw in filters, but the thing I'd miss most from it is the range up to 35mm for shots with people in them. Given the life stage (young kids), I'm more likely to use a 16-35 than a 12/14-24, although I'd look at the 12/14-24 as a replacement for my 14.

 

[thedman]

I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.

Yeah....I have a Zeiss 21mm and the Sigma 35mm Art that I did personal, informal testing against my new Canon 16-35mm IS. So...I used to never use my 16-35mm f/2.8 II because the Zeiss and the Sigma blew it away....but damn...these are all very close in sharpness now....hmmmmmmm...the others do offer the faster f/stops though.

Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg

 

[ahsanford]

Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg

Lovely shot. Terrific. Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a rookie on landscape work -- how on earth did you get the trees in the foreground so bright? It looks like those trees are below the line of the sun, and your skyline is sufficiently uneven to make using an ND grad pretty difficult. So how did you get that? What that a composite of a few exposures? Surely you didn't just push up the shadows in post...

- A

 

[thedman]

Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg

Lovely shot. Terrific. Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a rookie on landscape work -- how on earth did you get the trees in the foreground so bright? It looks like those trees are below the line of the sun, and your skyline is sufficiently uneven to make using an ND grad pretty difficult. So how did you get that? What that a composite of a few exposures? Surely you didn't just push up the shadows in post...

- A

Thanks! You're right about the composite - it's one shot for the ground and one for the sky. The trees in the middle aren't as below the horizon as it looks... they're kind of coming up the hillside at me. The very tops of them were just getting touched by a bit of sun. Add a bit of curves and you have bright trees.

 

[VitC]

I'm really pleased by the improved edge image quality over the 17-40, this means no more worries when shooting larger groups. What I noticed though is that the lens attracted more dust on the front element than any of the other L lenses. What changed in the coating? Or is it just me?

 

[tron]

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...

Very cruel considering I have just bought the f/4 IS version. Add to that the fact that bought 16-35 2.8L a few months/one year before the 16-35 2.8L II and you have the complete picture! ;D

 

[ahsanford]

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.

I forgot how useful it was to have AF in the ultrawide range for a walk-around lens until I swapped the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS. Now, I look for reasons to use it. I use the 24-35mm range on it for about 1/3 of the shots I keep. It may not be as good as the 24-70 II, but it is still excellent and saves on a lot of lens changes and renders in a similarly pleasing way. I'd rather have the f/2.8 over the IS, but for now, I like the 16-35 f/4 IS a lot.

The 12/14-24 will likely not accept screw in filters, but the thing I'd miss most from it is the range up to 35mm for shots with people in them. Given the life stage (young kids), I'm more likely to use a 16-35 than a 12/14-24, although I'd look at the 12/14-24 as a replacement for my 14.

+1 on 16-35 over 14-24 for the ability to front filter. 2mm wider is admittedly non-trivial on the UWA end of things, but bulbous front elements are a non-starter for me.

(And yes: that's a +1 for the 16-35 vs. something that we have no credible evidence that it exists. Such is the allure of the mythical 14-24, sheesh.)

- A

 

[tron]

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.

I forgot how useful it was to have AF in the ultrawide range for a walk-around lens until I swapped the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS. Now, I look for reasons to use it. I use the 24-35mm range on it for about 1/3 of the shots I keep. It may not be as good as the 24-70 II, but it is still excellent and saves on a lot of lens changes and renders in a similarly pleasing way. I'd rather have the f/2.8 over the IS, but for now, I like the 16-35 f/4 IS a lot.

The 12/14-24 will likely not accept screw in filters, but the thing I'd miss most from it is the range up to 35mm for shots with people in them. Given the life stage (young kids), I'm more likely to use a 16-35 than a 12/14-24, although I'd look at the 12/14-24 as a replacement for my 14.

+1 on 16-35 over 14-24 for the ability to front filter. 2mm wider is admittedly non-trivial on the UWA end of things, but bulbous front elements are a non-starter for me.

(And yes: that's a +1 for the 16-35 vs. something that we have no credible evidence that it exists. Such is the allure of the mythical 14-24, sheesh.)

- A

+1 too. A 16-35 2.8 with sharp corners and no coma would be even more useful than my 14 2.8 II for astrophotography since there are cases where I could do with the more protective hood of 16-35 vs the small built in hood in 14 2.8 II combined with a bulbuous front element which makes it prone to flare from sideways light.

 

[ahsanford]

Roger at LR carved up one for all to see:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/of-course-we-took-one-apart

- A

 

[mackguyver]

And the SLRGear is finally in: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1712/cat/11

I think that leaves DxOMark as the only major reviewer left.

 

[candc]

flash bulletin. the canon 16-35 f/4 is pretty good. i picked mine up from the ups service center (adorama requires in person sig nowadays).

the first picture i took was in the parking lot and it was love at first sight.

ups parking lots are not the most scenic of locals but hey, when you have sharpness, contrast, and color like that?

 

[ahsanford]

Sigma: 14-24 F/4 OS is rumored for Photokina...

 

[msm]

Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg

Lovely shot. Terrific. Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a rookie on landscape work -- how on earth did you get the trees in the foreground so bright? It looks like those trees are below the line of the sun, and your skyline is sufficiently uneven to make using an ND grad pretty difficult. So how did you get that? What that a composite of a few exposures? Surely you didn't just push up the shadows in post...

- A

Thanks! You're right about the composite - it's one shot for the ground and one for the sky. The trees in the middle aren't as below the horizon as it looks... they're kind of coming up the hillside at me. The very tops of them were just getting touched by a bit of sun. Add a bit of curves and you have bright trees.

Didn't see this before now, but I too want to say great shot!

Good example of what can be done when people go out and use their camera to do what it can do instead of running to forums to complain about what it can't do.

 

[bosshog7_2000]

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

I noticed the same thing and this is why I will not buy the new 16-35mm f4. For my purposes, the 17-40mm is just as good at the widest setting and f11 which is where I do all of my landscape work.

 

[bosshog7_2000]

Yup, in terms of IQ, this lens just blows away the 16-35 and 17-40.

If you've still got one of those two lenses, you could try giving it away for free because they're not really worth having now.

Holy inflammatory statement Batman! Seriously....enough of the rhetoric already. For my purposes the 17-40 is a gem of a lens...but then again I just use it for landscapes between f8-f11. I'm sure the new 16-35 f4 is a great lens...and it should be given that Canon is WAY behind in providing superior quality UWA zooms, but it's not like their existing lenses are garbage.

generally agreed, although it is starting to seem, that at least on the wider end the new one is better even at landscape apertures than the 17-40 and even a touch compared to 16-35 II and not just for sharpness but for resistance to nasty purple fringing and stuff.

Truth be told the UWA zooms in the current lineup are better than most of the photogs who buy them.

Personally I think this types of statements are as silly as the other guy saying the only possible place for the 16-35 II and 17-40L is in the trash, they are useless now 100%. It's nonsense, heck we one swapped top end super-tele and 1 series with newbie sports shooters rebels and lenses and guess what the newbies some without even the best talent on top all instantly did better with the top gear. So it's silly to go around saying how most equipment is better than most photogs who buy it.

I stand by my statement...the TRUE differences in image quality between a 17-40mm and a 16-35f4 are negligible compared to the skill required to get the most out of them. Your thinking is why so many people try and 'buy' themselves Galen Rowell quality landscapes by buying the latest, greatest gear and upgrading every year...which is fine I guess if you can afford it. The fact is though that a 17-40mm is capable of providing world class imagery if you know what you're doing. You can't buy an artistic vision...

Sure, all that you've got to do is make sure that anything with detail in it is in the center of the lens, not in the corner or edges.

Problem is that when you're shooting landscapes, you've got detail everywhere that you want to keep.

That sort of restriction kind of messes with your artistic vision. Unless your artistic vision for landscape photography is limited to that of a portrait photographer.

Once again...you like to mettle with the facts. The fact is...at f11 you will be hard pressed to see ANY improvement in a landscape photo with the 16-35mm f4 over a 17-40. So, if you are saying the 17-40 is garbage then why waste your money on a new 16-35 f4 for landscape work??

By the way, I have many shots with the 17-40 on my flickr page, check them out.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60455482@N00/

 

[mackguyver]

...and the last of the major reviews is in:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF16-35mm-F4L-IS-USM-lens-review-Canon-s-best-wide-angle-zoom-yet

Conclusion

Adding stabilization in a lens like this is targeting videographers more than stills photographers, where the wide field of view and steadying effect can be put to good use, but it’s a welcome addition all the same. The imaging performance is good, very good in fact, but it’s not without some shortcomings, particularly at the longer end where field curvature provides some unexpected results. Once those are understood and either avoided or worked around, the lens can be a very satisfying performer and at $1,199 this new model doesn’t seem over priced.

 

[ahsanford]

...and the last of the major reviews is in:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF16-35mm-F4L-IS-USM-lens-review-Canon-s-best-wide-angle-zoom-yet

Conclusion

Adding stabilization in a lens like this is targeting videographers more than stills photographers, where the wide field of view and steadying effect can be put to good use, but it’s a welcome addition all the same. The imaging performance is good, very good in fact, but it’s not without some shortcomings, particularly at the longer end where field curvature provides some unexpected results. Once those are understood and either avoided or worked around, the lens can be a very satisfying performer and at $1,199 this new model doesn’t seem over priced.

But to DXO, we're still on the overall 'poor' end of the scale. If the sensor only had more pixels, this lens would score higher... Ridiculous.

Those same jokers gave the new 85mm Otus a score of 38 for Canon and a score of 49 for Nikon based solely on the D800/800E/810's higher resolving power. Rubbish.

- A

 

[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?

 

[Khalai]

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.

 

[Phenix205]

...and the last of the major reviews is in:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF16-35mm-F4L-IS-USM-lens-review-Canon-s-best-wide-angle-zoom-yet

Conclusion

Adding stabilization in a lens like this is targeting videographers more than stills photographers, where the wide field of view and steadying effect can be put to good use, but it’s a welcome addition all the same. The imaging performance is good, very good in fact, but it’s not without some shortcomings, particularly at the longer end where field curvature provides some unexpected results. Once those are understood and either avoided or worked around, the lens can be a very satisfying performer and at $1,199 this new model doesn’t seem over priced.

But to DXO, we're still on the overall 'poor' end of the scale. If the sensor only had more pixels, this lens would score higher... Ridiculous.

Those same jokers gave the new 85mm Otus a score of 38 for Canon and a score of 49 for Nikon based solely on the D800/800E/810's higher resolving power. Rubbish.

- A

+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.