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

[ahsanford]

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.

Yes, it's a lovely lens. But for landscapes, which is what I am going to use it for, I need to know that I am not just paying +$400 for IS over the 17-40 F/4L.

So I'm not being critic. I think I am going to buy this lens. But before my money comes out, I am asking this group:

1) Did Canon really deliver on those stellar MTF charts? Is this is the sharp-in-the-corner landscape lens many have been looking for?

2) For landscape work on a FF body (both on a tripod and handheld), and presuming that I want an UWA zoom, is this the best one to get?

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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.

That's one thing you can do with it.

IS is fantastic for stills of non-moving scenes in poor light. Compared to a non-IS lens of the same specs, you can:

• Net the same shot with 3-4 stops lower ISO.
• Keep the ISO the same and walk the aperture down 3-4 stops and get more working DOF in a sharper smaller aperture.

Put another way: There are certain places/circumstances where you cannot use or do not have a tripod or a flash, and that's when IS can save your bacon. As a handheld, natural light shooter (98% of the time), I absolutely love it at all focal lengths, especially at night.

- A

 

[PhilA]

So I'm not being critic. I think I am going to buy this lens. But before my money comes out, I am asking this group:

1) Did Canon really deliver on those stellar MTF charts? Is this is the sharp-in-the-corner landscape lens many have been looking for?

2) For landscape work on a FF body (both on a tripod and handheld), and presuming that I want an UWA zoom, is this the best one to get?

- A

Yes.

Yes.

Unless you have the absolute need for f2.8 (and for whatever reason upping the ISO won't work for you) then the f4L is much sharper - at least from f4 to f8 - in the corners. The centres are pretty much the same on both. Plus you have the bonus of the IS.

http://www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg

 

[ahsanford]

So I'm not being critic. I think I am going to buy this lens. But before my money comes out, I am asking this group:

1) Did Canon really deliver on those stellar MTF charts? Is this is the sharp-in-the-corner landscape lens many have been looking for?

2) For landscape work on a FF body (both on a tripod and handheld), and presuming that I want an UWA zoom, is this the best one to get?

- A

Yes.

Yes.

Unless you have the absolute need for f2.8 (and for whatever reason upping the ISO won't work for you) then the f4L is much sharper - at least from f4 to f8 - in the corners. The centres are pretty much the same on both. Plus you have the bonus of the IS.

http://www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg

Thanks.

Yeah, I'm a jerk for asking that first question. It's clear from the data I have linked (as well as samples from a number of reviewers) that at landscape apertures this lens is not a massive improvement like the MTF charts implied. It's a very good lens, don't get me wrong, but the MTF charts (esp. in comparison to the lackluster 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L charts) would have had me expecting larger improvements.

But for the other reasons mentioned -- IS, good control of CA, 77mm filters, etc. -- I'm probably still going to buy it anyway. My 2nd question is still a resounding 'Yes' to me right now. ;D

- A

 

[Khalai]

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.

Yes, it's a lovely lens. But for landscapes, which is what I am going to use it for, I need to know that I am not just paying +$400 for IS over the 17-40 F/4L.

So I'm not being critic. I think I am going to buy this lens. But before my money comes out, I am asking this group:

1) Did Canon really deliver on those stellar MTF charts? Is this is the sharp-in-the-corner landscape lens many have been looking for?

2) For landscape work on a FF body (both on a tripod and handheld), and presuming that I want an UWA zoom, is this the best one to get?

- A

My copy of 16-35/4L simply put old but trusty 17-40/4L into retirement. Those cornes are improved quite noticeably. No horrid CA, no mushiness, no lacking contrast. Even wide open, it's quite usable in the corners, from about f/8, it's satisfactory sharp enough for most people I guess.

 

[mackguyver]

My copy of 16-35/4L simply put old but trusty 17-40/4L into retirement. Those cornes are improved quite noticeably. No horrid CA, no mushiness, no lacking contrast. Even wide open, it's quite usable in the corners, from about f/8, it's satisfactory sharp enough for most people I guess.

My copy is wonderful as well and I couldn't be happier with my new lens.

It's clear from the data I have linked (as well as samples from a number of reviewers) that at landscape apertures this lens is not a massive improvement like the MTF charts implied. It's a very good lens, don't get me wrong, but the MTF charts (esp. in comparison to the lackluster 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L charts) would have had me expecting larger improvements.

Yes, it's not a massive improvement in numbers, but when shooting real subjects, the improved contrast, color, and absence of CA goes a long way to make better photos, even if the resolving power at f/11 and f/16 isn't significantly higher.

 

[ahsanford]

My copy of 16-35/4L simply put old but trusty 17-40/4L into retirement. Those cornes are improved quite noticeably. No horrid CA, no mushiness, no lacking contrast. Even wide open, it's quite usable in the corners, from about f/8, it's satisfactory sharp enough for most people I guess.

My copy is wonderful as well and I couldn't be happier with my new lens.

It's clear from the data I have linked (as well as samples from a number of reviewers) that at landscape apertures this lens is not a massive improvement like the MTF charts implied. It's a very good lens, don't get me wrong, but the MTF charts (esp. in comparison to the lackluster 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L charts) would have had me expecting larger improvements.

Yes, it's not a massive improvement in numbers, but when shooting real subjects, the improved contrast, color, and absence of CA goes a long way to make better photos, even if the resolving power at f/11 and f/16 isn't significantly higher.

I rented the new 16-35 F/4L IS and was pleased with it. I just didn't have the flight hours logged with the other two Canon UWA zooms to know if it was better / worth its money. I know I don't need the F/2.8, so it's really just a question of the 16-35 F/4L IS or the 17-40 f/4L. The clear read from everyone is that the new lens is certainly worth it.

I hereby drop my resolution numbers question.

I had also forgotten from my 28mm F/2.8 IS usage that nighttime/low-light handheld use -- even with IS -- rarely lets me stop down to F/8, F/11, etc. without hitting 5 digit ISO levels. So the increased sharpness at F/4 - F/8 will absolutely get used in my hands.

Looks like it's time to move something from the B&H wishlist to the shopping cart...

- A

 

[ahsanford]

And we're finally getting some Flickr traffic in the group that was setup for this new lens:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2644636@N20/

Some folks are posting full-res shots for download, FYI.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

And Bryan Carnathan has obtained and tested a second 16-35 F/4L IS lens. It's not super-obvious how to find this on his site, so I've made a link for comparing the two:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

- A

 

[mackguyver]

Sample photos are up on LensTip:
http://www.lenstip.com/2097-news-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_-_sample_images.html

I look forward to their review - they seem to be one of the more thorough and consist review sites.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

How does the 16-35 II do for in forest shooting when you get dense branches against white clouds and sky? Is it purple fringe city like most of the older UWA/regular FF zooms or is it low? That kind of CA is a pain to fix and this new one handles that fairly well.

 

[mackguyver]

How does the 16-35 II do for in forest shooting when you get dense branches against white clouds and sky? Is it purple fringe city like most of the older UWA/regular FF zooms or is it low? That kind of CA is a pain to fix and this new one handles that fairly well.

That was my experience with the lens, which made the 24-70II a revelation when I started using it. The 16-35 f/4 IS does very well with CA, particularly once it's stopped down to f/8 or so. It's only at the most extreme part of the corner and even then it's just a pixel wide at most. Here's a sample - it's been compressed in terms of DR (highlight lowered, shadows brightened), but is otherwise uncorrected/processed. This is a 100% crop from the far left of the frame about 200px from the top. It's not a good example of the sharpness as it's handheld at f/16 and these leaves were essentially black before I pulled up the shadows, but it shows how little CA there is:

 

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

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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. And how much skill does it take to get a much crisper less technically defect riddled 24mm image out of a 24-70 II than a 24-105L? Not much. Of course, sure at the end of the day the photographer has to take the picture and a 24-70 II hardly guarantees a nice shot, but that is a different matter. (of course this latter point also tells why the threads where people share 1/4MP downsamples to get each other excited and you have people saying oh man now I need to get that lens are ridiculous too, at 1/4MP far and away most defects are downsize away so, for the most part, although not quite entirely, it's just the shots that are exciting or not and getting a 24-70 II and then shooting a cat in your backyard won't quite manage to give you the same picture as that stunning shot of the Na Pali Coast or a lion in Zimbabwe.)

But if someone wants less CA of a certain type or better crispness who is anyone to say they don't deserve it because their current equipment is better than they are?

 

[JonAustin]

These reviews, observations and sample images are all very positive, and recommend the lens quite well.

I just sold my 11-year-old 17-40, which was very good quality, but little used since I moved to full frame in 2007. That sale, along with the sale of my 8-year-old 70-200/2.8 IS I, funded my purchase of a 70-200/2.8 II.

I don't have any immediate plans to buy the new 16-35/4 IS, but won't hesitate to do so, should I find a need in the future. Thanks for all the feedback!

 

[ahsanford]

Great thread, gang! Thanks a lot.

If you haven't already seen Mackguyver's personal review with copious comparisons for download, please go here and read all about it. It's a very nice piece of work on this part:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21691.0

- A

 

[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...

 

[ahsanford]

Just pulled the trigger today on this new lens. I haven't had an ultrawide in my arsenal since I made the move to FF two years ago, so I am really looking forward to this.

Thanks for all the feedback, gang. Much appreciated.

- A

 

[mackguyver]

Just pulled the trigger today on this new lens. I haven't had an ultrawide in my arsenal since I made the move to FF two years ago, so I am really looking forward to this.

Thanks for all the feedback, gang. Much appreciated.

- A

I don't think you'll regret it - I'm having a lot of fun with it! My latest is trying photos of my cats (they are somewhat willing subjects) in very low light to try out the IS, which works very well.

 

[ahsanford]

Just pulled the trigger today on this new lens. I haven't had an ultrawide in my arsenal since I made the move to FF two years ago, so I am really looking forward to this.

Thanks for all the feedback, gang. Much appreciated.

- A

I don't think you'll regret it - I'm having a lot of fun with it! My latest is trying photos of my cats (they are somewhat willing subjects) in very low light to try out the IS, which works very well.

Yeah... I got this lens for landscape work, but what did I do when my rental arrived? I insisted upon a cow-in-the-pasture UWA closeup.

I am a child.

- A