• The Canon Rumors Forum has officially been shut down as of July 10, 2026.

    All data will be deleted on September 16, 2026.

    the ad free experience will return by July 17, 2026.

EF 16-35 f/4L, Now that it's been out for a while, what are your thoughts?

Sort by date Sort by votes
slclick

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 16, 2013
4,634
2,990
31,996
#1
My current kit has found me with the widest FL of 24 and I have been mulling over the 16-35 f/4 L IS. I have owned both the 17-40 and 2.8 16-35. Also a Zeiss 18 3.5.

I'd like to hear from those who own/owned/rented this supposedly super sharp in the center, sharp in the corners lens.

TIA
 
#4
slclick said:
My current kit has found me with the widest FL of 24 and I have been mulling over the 16-35 f/4 L IS. I have owned both the 17-40 and 2.8 16-35. Also a Zeiss 18 3.5.

I'd like to hear from those who own/owned/rented this supposedly super sharp in the center, sharp in the corners lens.

TIA
Click to expand...
I had both Canon 17-40mm and 16-35mm f2.8L II and sold the later one to get the new 16-35 f4L IS. I haven't been happier with my decision in terms of IQ, sharpness and portability. IS is phenomenal and allows me to shoot at very low speeds, borders are sharp enough wide open and improve a little when stopped down. At 35mm, the difference with my 35 f2IS is minimal.
Just get it.
the 2.8 version has an advantage for sports and quick action but, for everything else this lens wins hands down.
 
Upvote 0
#6
On my last safari I used this 16-35 f4. I left 14mm and 24 at home because of weight restrictions. It was the first time I used this lens that much. It's fantastic. I didn't think a minute about the 24 and the 14mm. Is a very great replacement for my 17-40. To be honest, I even don't know if I should keep that 14 2.8 and 24 1.4ii.

Was besides the 200-400 one of the best purchases this year when I look to the results
 
Upvote 0
#7
FEBS said:
On my last safari I used this 16-35 f4. I left 14mm and 24 at home because of weight restrictions. It was the first time I used this lens that much. It's fantastic. I didn't think a minute about the 24 and the 14mm. Is a very great replacement for my 17-40. To be honest, I even don't know if I should keep that 14 2.8 and 24 1.4ii.

Was besides the 200-400 one of the best purchases this year when I look to the results
Click to expand...

Yeah...I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8II to buy it. So it cost me nothing and then I realized that it was so sharp and with the IS and accurate AF I also sold my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. I just stopped using it. So the lens allowEd me to turn a profit
 
Upvote 0
#13
One question I haven't seen answered - I'm heading out to Disney in a few weeks and planning on videoing the fireworks with my 6D and 16-35 F2.8II. I've used it before with great success but I'm tempted to switch to the F4 version for regular photos plus the IS might be more advantageous while videoing but I'm leery of losing the F2.8 for the fireworks lighting. I used to video them with a T4i and an EF-S 10-22 and the F3.5 never quite looked as good as shooting with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 (but I preferred the wide angle of the 10-22). That's what I'm using for comparison and I'm not sure it's fair given that I"m comparing a cropped to FF sensor as well.

How are the low light capabilities of the lens compared to the f2.8 version?
 
Upvote 0
#14
A quick answer is YES. This could be Canon best UWA zoom ever. Here are some photos taken with 16-35 f4 IS:

http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Landscape/Calico-Ghost-Town/i-pSBpXGF#!/Landscape/Calico-Ghost-Town/i-hJBqPPc

There are some with 70-200, but all wide shots were taken with f4 IS. Be able to shoot f22ish handheld at slower shutter is very helpful. IS is super on 1/10 or slower - handheld of course. I had 16-35 f2.8 II in the past, f4 IS is clearly a winner.
 
Upvote 0
#15
Skywise said:
One question I haven't seen answered - I'm heading out to Disney in a few weeks and planning on videoing the fireworks with my 6D and 16-35 F2.8II. I've used it before with great success but I'm tempted to switch to the F4 version for regular photos plus the IS might be more advantageous while videoing but I'm leery of losing the F2.8 for the fireworks lighting. I used to video them with a T4i and an EF-S 10-22 and the F3.5 never quite looked as good as shooting with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 (but I preferred the wide angle of the 10-22). That's what I'm using for comparison and I'm not sure it's fair given that I"m comparing a cropped to FF sensor as well.

How are the low light capabilities of the lens compared to the f2.8 version?
Click to expand...

You know the answer I think.
The 16-35 f4 is one stop less then the 2.8. So the same you did find on the comparison between the 10-22 and the 17-55, will here be the same. The 10-22 is an excellent lens on a crop body, but the f3.5 is not the strongest side of this lens for doing low light.
 
Upvote 0
#16
FEBS said:
You know the answer I think.
The 16-35 f4 is one stop less then the 2.8. So the same you did find on the comparison between the 10-22 and the 17-55, will here be the same. The 10-22 is an excellent lens on a crop body, but the f3.5 is not the strongest side of this lens for doing low light.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was ultimately what I was thinking but I thought the FF sensor may be more of a factor than extra stops. (as it is, the videos I took with the 16-35 on the 6D were breathtaking
 
Upvote 0
#17
FEBS said:
Skywise said:
One question I haven't seen answered - I'm heading out to Disney in a few weeks and planning on videoing the fireworks with my 6D and 16-35 F2.8II. I've used it before with great success but I'm tempted to switch to the F4 version for regular photos plus the IS might be more advantageous while videoing but I'm leery of losing the F2.8 for the fireworks lighting. I used to video them with a T4i and an EF-S 10-22 and the F3.5 never quite looked as good as shooting with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 (but I preferred the wide angle of the 10-22). That's what I'm using for comparison and I'm not sure it's fair given that I"m comparing a cropped to FF sensor as well.

How are the low light capabilities of the lens compared to the f2.8 version?
Click to expand...

You know the answer I think.
The 16-35 f4 is one stop less then the 2.8. So the same you did find on the comparison between the 10-22 and the 17-55, will here be the same. The 10-22 is an excellent lens on a crop body, but the f3.5 is not the strongest side of this lens for doing low light.
Click to expand...

I'm transitioning to FF across most focal lengths (will keep my EF-S 15-85mm lens though), and just ordered the 16-35mm f/4. While I know it to be true, I keep telling myself if it's as good as the 10-22mm I'll be a happy camper. Love that lens!
 
Upvote 0
#19
Before buying my first wide angle lenses after so many good responds I got only one option: Samyang 14mm f/2.8. I was very disappointed because of: very noticeable soft corners, big distortions and minor problem -> lack of autofocus. So in the end I put my trigger for new canon 16-35mm f/4 IS. I'm only hobbyist, so I got money only for Grey market order, which comes twice the price of Samyang 14mm, but at least not three times higher like officially in UK.

From first day I was in love for this lens. Picture sharpness - from corner to corner. Modern look, build like tank and very nice feel of zoom and focusing ring. Very nice to use for video capture as well. Love that it got 77mm filter thread as well, like most of my lens.

I got chance to make some timelapses using this lens, so maybe somebody will be interested seeing it:

http://youtu.be/OyxlDlXhAZA
http://youtu.be/NLUVbpVFYpQ

Cheers ;)
 
Upvote 0
#20
Denisas Pupka said:
Before buying my first wide angle lenses after so many good responds I got only one option: Samyang 14mm f/2.8. I was very disappointed because of: very noticeable soft corners
Click to expand...

I tried the Samyang 14mm and returned it. The corners are so stretched that they turn to mush. After lens correction for the distortion, the 14mm advantage is lost.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
16-35 f/2.8L III for astro?
Replies
20
Views
13K
Frodo
F
N
16-35 f/4L IS or Zeiss T* 18mm f/3.5
Replies
11
Views
6K
Hector1970
H
mackguyver
WonderPana FreeArc XL for Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens
Replies
32
Views
17K
GMCPhotographics
GMCPhotographics
siegsAR
16-35 f/4L IS with EF 35 f/2 IS
Replies
12
Views
6K
bholliman
bholliman
Canon Rumors
Patent: Canon EF 16-40mm f/4
Replies
49
Views
21K
StudentOfLight
S
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu