Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/canon-ef-16-35-f4l-is-sample-images/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/canon-ef-16-35-f4l-is-sample-images/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>I’m not sure how I missed these, but <a href="http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/ef1635f4lis/sample.html" target="_blank">Canon China</a> has posted same images from the upcoming Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS. The images look good, and the corners look better than the EF 17-40 f/4L. However, we won’t know for sure how much better the lens is until we get some real world reviews. <a href="http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/ef1635f4lis/sample.html" target="_blank">View the sample images here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS $1199:</strong> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=6AVWEQKBYJ7TXPHU" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a></strong> | <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA16354.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[FunPhotons]

I wonder if the geographic divisions are somewhat independent. Why would Canon China post pictures but nowhere else? They make seemingly random and uncoordinated marketing efforts much of the time (such as the U.S. EOS-M decisions)

 

[candyman]

I wonder if the geographic divisions are somewhat independent. Why would Canon China post pictures but nowhere else? They make seemingly random and uncoordinated marketing efforts much of the time (such as the U.S. EOS-M decisions)

They published those photos a few days ago in the Netherlands by Canon. But, small size. Seems marketing wise not consistent.

 

[stuDoc]

Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.

 

[Jack56]

Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.

Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?

 

[PicaPica]

to be honest i don´t see a big improvement over my good 17-40mm copy.
don´t know where you see better corners...

but i hope for more examples.
canons image examples suck 90% of the time anyway.

 

[rbr]

I can't tell much of anything really from any of those photos. None really have much corner detail. We also don't know where the focus points were for any of them. I look forward to trying my own. You can tell a lot very quickly by focusing up close and looking at grasses and dead leaves in the foreground corners.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.

Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?

This new lens seems pointless to me - it's even longer than the f/2.8II and weighs almost the same. The 17-40 is the hands down winner for travel and portability in general. If I'm going to lug a WA that big, then it better have a 2.8 aperture.

 

[Etienne]

Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.

Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?

The white house is 17mm f/8. Hard to say where the focus point was, but corners look sharp to me, some distant details may be a soft because the focus point may be close to the lens.

The church looks good, 16mm f/8, again don't know where the focus is, but should have lots of DOF. The shot is not razor sharp everywhere, but not bad. It is a 10 second exposure, so there could be some camera movement, you can't know how careful they were, or whether they used a good tripod.

Unfortunately, the only thing you can do is wait for reviews from good reliable sources.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.

Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?

Those are VERY complex angled scenes and who knows where they placed the focus (which matters a LOT for scenes like that).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.

Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?

This new lens seems pointless to me - it's even longer than the f/2.8II and weighs almost the same. The 17-40 is the hands down winner for travel and portability in general. If I'm going to lug a WA that big, then it better have a 2.8 aperture.

Totally disagree. I could care less (grammar police, using this in the NEW accepted form so shhhhh ) about f/2.8 for this range. IS matter a lot more as does raw image quality.

 

[pdirestajr]

Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.

Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?

This new lens seems pointless to me - it's even longer than the f/2.8II and weighs almost the same. The 17-40 is the hands down winner for travel and portability in general. If I'm going to lug a WA that big, then it better have a 2.8 aperture.

Totally disagree. I could care less (grammar police, using this in the NEW accepted form so shhhhh ) about f/2.8 for this range. IS matter a lot more as does raw image quality.

Wouldn't it have just been faster to make it "couldn't" instead of going through the whole disclaimer?!

 

[markko]

They published those photos a few days ago in the Netherlands by Canon. But, small size. Seems marketing wise not consistent.

A link to the above mentioned Dutch page with a gallery on the right:

http://www.canon.nl/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Wide_zoom/EF_16-35mm_f4L_IS_USM/index.aspx

 

[Andy_Hodapp]

Really hard to tell anything with the amount of jpeg compression on these photos

 

[Springf]

well, unlike other manufacturers, Canon usually post the worst in the image samples...

so you have a bottomline to start with your expectation of this lens.

 

[tgara]

Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.

Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?

Those are VERY complex angled scenes and who knows where they placed the focus (which matters a LOT for scenes like that).

I imported the stairs photo into Aperture and turned on the focus point overlay. Looks pretty good to me.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

F/4 is fine for almost all users. I'm probably one of the few who actually use f/2.8 on a regular basis, just because of the lack of light in theaters. Now that I have my 24-70 MK II, I do not use wider very often.

I'd say this is one of the new family of Video optimized lenses with IS that Canon is developing. They see video as a big selling point, so we are going to see more video features. Who knows, if they get good enough for me to use, I might take up video again. I did do it on Super 8mm film in 1968 for a few years, then again in the lete 1980's and early 1990's on SVHS. Using the video editors with my Panasonic Industrial recorders was time consuming to a extreme. Programming the controllers, black-bursting tapes - YUK!

I've also done it more recently using computers to edit, and even with my DSLR's, but I'm not happy with the results, and not willing to invest time and $$ into video, at least for now.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

F/4 is fine for almost all users. I'm probably one of the few who actually use f/2.8 on a regular basis, just because of the lack of light in theaters. Now that I have my 24-70 MK II, I do not use wider very often.

I'd say this is one of the new family of Video optimized lenses with IS that Canon is developing. They see video as a big selling point, so we are going to see more video features. Who knows, if they get good enough for me to use, I might take up video again. I did do it on Super 8mm film in 1968 for a few years, then again in the lete 1980's and early 1990's on SVHS. Using the video editors with my Panasonic Industrial recorders was time consuming to a extreme. Programming the controllers, black-bursting tapes - YUK!

I've also done it more recently using computers to edit, and even with my DSLR's, but I'm not happy with the results, and not willing to invest time and $$ into video, at least for now.

If you have a 5D3 install ML and then you'll be more than happy with the results (so long as you don't require 4k to be happy). The video quality on 5D3 for 1080p using ML RAW video is really pretty awesome.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.

Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?

Those are VERY complex angled scenes and who knows where they placed the focus (which matters a LOT for scenes like that).

I imported the stairs photo into Aperture and turned on the focus point overlay. Looks pretty good to me.

I don't know about that, with such a twisted scene, I'm not surprised some of the back parts go wonky with that close central focus.

 

[FunPhotons]

This may have been covered by somebody, and of course we won't know until it's released, but based on the charts will this lens differ from the 16-35/2.8 above f/8 much at all?