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

[Ruined]

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?

If the MTF charts are representative of real world performance it should be sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8 at f/8

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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?

If it matches the charts, then easily so.

 

[AndreeOnline]

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

While it might be an actual indication, it doesn't mean much.

I they use the central point for accuracy, and then recompose, it won't show you where they actually focused.

 

[rahkshi007]

The corner look sharp but not very impressive.. i still doubt it worth the upgrade unless those video guy need the " IS "

 

[Etienne]

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.

ML Raw video ... how many minutes of video do you get on a 32GB card?
And how onerous is the post processing?

thx

 

[tron]

I sold my 16-35mm 2.8L (version 1) so I will think about it. I believe though that a 2.8 version III would be the best (if it is coma free) since I would like to use it for both landscape and Astrophotography ...

 

[Dantana]

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.

I think this just shows how different everyone's needs are. I think I fall in between the both of you. I don't really care about IS at this focal length. F4 is probably fine. The sharpness of the new lens is the selling point for me.

The negatives are that it's basically as big as the 16-35II, which is quite a bit bigger than the 17-40 when you are trying to fit everything in a backpack with your other hiking gear/photog gear/lenses. Also, while the price seems great compared to the 16-35II, it's quite a bit more than the 17-40. The 17-40 on the refurb store goes on special for $570ish quite often.

I think I will still end up buying this lens over the 17-40 if real world tests confirm the charts, but I will have to wait until the price drops/goes on sale/shows up in the Canon refurb store.

 

[Jack56]

When will there be reviews to read? First or second week of June?

 

[sleepnever]

So, according to the Chinese site, those were taken at f/8. I want to see what it looks like at f/4 before I start comparing it to the 17-40.

 

[brad-man]

When will there be reviews to read? First or second week of June?

I pre-ordered one from Canon Direct (for a discounted promotional price of $1074 that I hope they'll honor) and the estimated shipping date is 6-27-14. So I would imagine there won't be any retail purchased lens reviews until the first week of July.

 

[Jack56]

Thanks. A pity, holiday starts second week of July.

 

[MrPhotoEditor]

Pros
Minimal - and I mean it - CA (you can hardly spot them)
Excellent sharpness from center to corner
Very low barrel distortion for an ultrawide zoom lens
Simply unbelievable resistance to flare - reminded me the 24-70II (perhaps even better)
Very nice ergonomics - built quality - smooth focus/zoom rings
IS only a fraction louder than the one inside 24/28/35 IS USM
Beautiful bokeh!

Cons
Vignetting at f/4 at 24mm and especially at 35mm

Definitely a classic!!!

1st shot 16mm, f/11

2nd shot 16mm, f/8.
The 2nd shot comes with details from bottom left and top right to help you evaluate how minimal the CA are... I haven't correct them..

3rd shot 16mm, f/5.6.

 

[traingineer]

Pros
Minimal - and I mean it - CA (you can hardly spot them)
Excellent sharpness from center to corner
Very low barrel distortion for an ultrawide zoom lens
Simply unbelievable resistance to flare - reminded me the 24-70II (perhaps even better)
Very nice ergonomics - built quality - smooth focus/zoom rings
IS only a fraction louder than the one inside 24/28/35 IS USM
Beautiful bokeh!

Cons
Vignetting at f/4 at 24mm and especially at 35mm

Definitely a classic!!!

1st shot 16mm, f/11

2nd shot 16mm, f/8.
The 2nd shot comes with details from bottom left and top right to help you evaluate how minimal the CA are... I haven't correct them..

3rd shot 16mm, f/5.6.

The 2nd and last shot are very nice. But how did you get the lens so quickly?

 

[MrPhotoEditor]

Pros
Minimal - and I mean it - CA (you can hardly spot them)
Excellent sharpness from center to corner
Very low barrel distortion for an ultrawide zoom lens
Simply unbelievable resistance to flare - reminded me the 24-70II (perhaps even better)
Very nice ergonomics - built quality - smooth focus/zoom rings
IS only a fraction louder than the one inside 24/28/35 IS USM
Beautiful bokeh!

Cons
Vignetting at f/4 at 24mm and especially at 35mm

Definitely a classic!!!

1st shot 16mm, f/11

2nd shot 16mm, f/8.
The 2nd shot comes with details from bottom left and top right to help you evaluate how minimal the CA are... I haven't correct them..

3rd shot 16mm, f/5.6.

The 2nd and last shot are very nice. But how did you get the lens so quickly?

Just a humble technical editor - for the last 12+ years - reviewing stuff...!

 

[traingineer]

Pros
Minimal - and I mean it - CA (you can hardly spot them)
Excellent sharpness from center to corner
Very low barrel distortion for an ultrawide zoom lens
Simply unbelievable resistance to flare - reminded me the 24-70II (perhaps even better)
Very nice ergonomics - built quality - smooth focus/zoom rings
IS only a fraction louder than the one inside 24/28/35 IS USM
Beautiful bokeh!

Cons
Vignetting at f/4 at 24mm and especially at 35mm

Definitely a classic!!!

1st shot 16mm, f/11

2nd shot 16mm, f/8.
The 2nd shot comes with details from bottom left and top right to help you evaluate how minimal the CA are... I haven't correct them..

3rd shot 16mm, f/5.6.

The 2nd and last shot are very nice. But how did you get the lens so quickly?

Just a humble technical editor - for the last 12+ years - reviewing stuff...!

Well then, does that mean you (maybe) have the 10-18mm up for a review? ;D

 

[applecider]

Photo editor any shots at f4?

 

[Dylan777]

Pros
Minimal - and I mean it - CA (you can hardly spot them)
Excellent sharpness from center to corner
Very low barrel distortion for an ultrawide zoom lens
Simply unbelievable resistance to flare - reminded me the 24-70II (perhaps even better)
Very nice ergonomics - built quality - smooth focus/zoom rings
IS only a fraction louder than the one inside 24/28/35 IS USM
Beautiful bokeh!

Cons
Vignetting at f/4 at 24mm and especially at 35mm

Definitely a classic!!!

1st shot 16mm, f/11

2nd shot 16mm, f/8.
The 2nd shot comes with details from bottom left and top right to help you evaluate how minimal the CA are... I haven't correct them..

3rd shot 16mm, f/5.6.

Music to my ears. Thanks for an early info MrPhotoEditor

Couple questions:
1. How is the AF? in term of accuracy and speed?
3. Do you find IS is helpful for UWA?

Thanks

 

[AtSea]

If there's especially bad vignetting at F/4 @ 24/35mm then what's it like at 16mm? :-\

 

[rrcphoto]

If there's especially bad vignetting at F/4 @ 24/35mm then what's it like at 16mm? :-\

are you putting words in people's mouths?

 

[benperrin]

That last shot is really impressive. I think I really want this lens. Anyone want to buy a 17-40???