Canon EF16-35mm F4L IS USM lens review

[123Photog]

With a DxOMark score of 22 points the Canon EF16-35mm f4L IS USM is generally a good performer. It has good peak sharpness, particularly in the center at 16mm from f4 onwards, reasonable transmission of 4.5Tstops and low vignetting, though it’s still noticeable wide-open, particularly in the extreme corners at 16mm and more generally in the periphery at 35mm. Sharpness varies throughout the zoom range, as you might expect with a zoom but thanks to some curvature of field this lens has a rather complicated optical performance. At 28mm the lens has somewhat soft corners at full aperture, a marked increase in sharpness across the field at f5.6 and then at f8 a return to the lower edge performance seen at f4. Geometry is good though (particularly at 20mm); there’s no difficult to correct moustache type distortion, only some barrel distortion at 16mm and slight pincushion from 24mm.
.....
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.

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

 

[Hjalmarg1]

With a DxOMark score of 22 points the Canon EF16-35mm f4L IS USM is generally a good performer. It has good peak sharpness, particularly in the center at 16mm from f4 onwards, reasonable transmission of 4.5Tstops and low vignetting, though it’s still noticeable wide-open, particularly in the extreme corners at 16mm and more generally in the periphery at 35mm. Sharpness varies throughout the zoom range, as you might expect with a zoom but thanks to some curvature of field this lens has a rather complicated optical performance. At 28mm the lens has somewhat soft corners at full aperture, a marked increase in sharpness across the field at f5.6 and then at f8 a return to the lower edge performance seen at f4. Geometry is good though (particularly at 20mm); there’s no difficult to correct moustache type distortion, only some barrel distortion at 16mm and slight pincushion from 24mm.
.....
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.

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

I am actually disappointed with the score given to the 16-35 f4L IS placing it on par to the 17-40 f4L. My copy is way sharper than the 16-35 f2.8L and 17-40mm f4L at similar partures and focal lenghts.
I can understand why. ANybody can explain this to us in the forum?

 

[sagittariansrock]

With a DxOMark score of 22 points the Canon EF16-35mm f4L IS USM is generally a good performer. It has good peak sharpness, particularly in the center at 16mm from f4 onwards, reasonable transmission of 4.5Tstops and low vignetting, though it’s still noticeable wide-open, particularly in the extreme corners at 16mm and more generally in the periphery at 35mm. Sharpness varies throughout the zoom range, as you might expect with a zoom but thanks to some curvature of field this lens has a rather complicated optical performance. At 28mm the lens has somewhat soft corners at full aperture, a marked increase in sharpness across the field at f5.6 and then at f8 a return to the lower edge performance seen at f4. Geometry is good though (particularly at 20mm); there’s no difficult to correct moustache type distortion, only some barrel distortion at 16mm and slight pincushion from 24mm.
.....
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.

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

I am actually disappointed with the score given to the 16-35 f4L IS placing it on par to the 17-40 f4L. My copy is way sharper than the 16-35 f2.8L and 17-40mm f4L at similar partures and focal lenghts.
I can understand why. ANybody can explain this to us in the forum?

I think DxOmark's inconsistent and often inaccurate lens scoring has been frequently commented on in these fora. I think a better evaluation will be available at sites like photozone.de or thedigitalpicture.com where the evaluation is more transparent.

 

[Khalai]

I am actually disappointed with the score given to the 16-35 f4L IS placing it on par to the 17-40 f4L. My copy is way sharper than the 16-35 f2.8L and 17-40mm f4L at similar partures and focal lenghts.
I can understand why. ANybody can explain this to us in the forum?

+1, my 16-35/4L is night and day compared to the trusty old 17-40L I used to have for more than 3 years. You can actually read some relevant information from DxO, but never trust the score number, as there is no telling, whether it's a pure sumation, or weighted average or whatever mumbojumbo number that is...

 

[infared]

I am actually disappointed with the score given to the 16-35 f4L IS placing it on par to the 17-40 f4L. My copy is way sharper than the 16-35 f2.8L and 17-40mm f4L at similar partures and focal lenghts.
I can understand why. ANybody can explain this to us in the forum?

+1, my 16-35/4L is night and day compared to the trusty old 17-40L I used to have for more than 3 years. You can actually read some relevant information from DxO, but never trust the score number, as there is no telling, whether it's a pure sumation, or weighted average or whatever mumbojumbo number that is...

So true! The new canon 16-35mm f/4 just throws the 17-40mm on the ground and stomps on it in all aspects....and I personally sold my 16-35mm f/2.8'II to own a copy of this new lens...It offers this photographer more in shanpness, handling and cost.
Why DxO says that "adding IS is targeting videographers more", is totally off the mark,too as far as I am concerned. I only shoot stills and I find that IS is a welcome asset to help retain low ISO's when shooting stills and was definitely one of the most important selling features of the lens to me as it makes the f/4 aperture less of deterrent in many low light situations. II find that this lens is a break-thru WA for Canon whose WA zooms have been underwhelming compared to the competition...this is the first lens that helps dispell that well-earned reputation.

 

[rfdesigner]

I was surprised at the DxO score, I checked the sharpness profile and it too was unexceptional.

I almost wonder if they tested a dud, or if someone put fingerprints all over it.

Having said that.. Their overall score is not that much influenced by sharpness. I ran a correlation between the various parameters and their overall scores and found only a 15% correlation on sharpness, where as maximum aperture came out with >30% correlation.

Perhaps we should just keep quiet and hope this encourages Canon to drop the price on this to maintain sales, and to release an even sharper MkII

 

[Khalai]

Perhaps we should just keep quiet and hope this encourages Canon to drop the price on this to maintain sales, and to release an even sharper MkII

Well, I'm more than happy with my copy and since I already bought it, some rebates or sales won't affect me. As for the Mk II, well, let's wait for at least a decade and maybe, just maybe, we'll see it. In the meantime, let's hope that some sort of superultramegawideangle (11-14mm on the W end) appears and give a nice competiton to the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. Not that I personally would wanted such a lens for myself, but I love to see what technology and optics may achieve

 

[Woody]

The usual DXOMark nonsense.

Read what they oiginally thought of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mk2:
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8L-IS-II-USM-measurements-and-review

"The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM offers slightly less resolution with 51 lp/mm compared to the excellent 61 lp/mm of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM."

Ha, ha... contrary to every single review out there.

Then, check out their updated P-Mpix scores:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18135.15

M2 now miraculously scores 18 P-Mpix vs 13 P-Mpix from M1.

Read Neuroanatomist's post:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18135.15

I just don't take that site seriously. I only trust reviews from other sites.

 

[TungNguyen]

Should I wait until the next instant rebate in Fall (I guess in Nov-Dec) to buy this lense or just go for it now?

 

[Quest for Light]

lets not forget you can always get a bad copy.

thought sites like DXO should test a few copys before coming to a conclusion.