Impressions from the EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM

[nc0b]

If I use the hyperfocal marks on my Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 lens, I focus it as if I have set it 2 stops wider open than actual. Otherwise anything near infinity, as in a landscape, looks like mush.

 

[deleteme]

I bought the 16-35 for my work and I am very satisfied with it. I use it on a tripod almost exclusively so IS is not an issue but as I paid for it I am happy to have it.

The lens is very sharp and contrasty but I need to be at f8 or smaller to ensure edge sharpness at 16mm.
I am using it for less critical architectural work when I need to work quickly. Thus it suits me very well.

I too, was interested in the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 but even if it is perfectly wonderful I won't buy it as I am fine with the Canon and any improvement will not be seen by clients.

 

[ashmadux]

These days I rarely use my IS at all (well once this year) on any of my IS lenses.
Whilst I fancy the 16-35 F4 very much I struggle to think of a use for the IS for my photography, I don't use it on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS even when hand holding so on a 16-35?
Still if people want it then Canon would be silly not to include it!

I find this very odd. Canon is not likely to drop the price anyways, and its always a net benefit. Always. Im confused anytime someone would 'complain' about it...just doesn't make sense to me. (Sounds kind of photog snobby)

PS- no IS on 800mm....sir i think you are really a statue

 

[Deleted member 91053]

These days I rarely use my IS at all (well once this year) on any of my IS lenses.
Whilst I fancy the 16-35 F4 very much I struggle to think of a use for the IS for my photography, I don't use it on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS even when hand holding so on a 16-35?
Still if people want it then Canon would be silly not to include it!

I find this very odd. Canon is not likely to drop the price anyways, and its always a net benefit. Always. Im confused anytime someone would 'complain' about it...just doesn't make sense to me. (Sounds kind of photog snobby)

PS- no IS on 800mm....sir i think you are really a statue

My problem/concern with IS is the "dead" piece of glass in the optical path and the fact that IS slows down AF, it can upset tracking as well.
Now I am not worried about AF speed on a 16-35 but I can't help feeling that this lens might not have been a tad better (IQ wise) without it. I could well be wrong but these are just my thoughts. I agree though - Canon will NOT drop the price - it is just not in their vocabulary! Whatever the 16-35 F4 is a cracking lens and I want one!

As to the "Statue" point - no I am not. I am a 56 year old, arthritic, unfit, overweight, smoker, drinker, diabetic and lazy slob! So if I can hand hold the Canon 800mm at 1/500 without IS (almost) anybody can! It does take a little practice though.

 

[tpatana]

Anyone who considers himself (/herself) a photographer, should only buy 2.8 or faster. You can easily spot the amateurs carrying the F4s around.

Agree. But between the higher cost and carrying around all that extra weight I don't know if I would purchase the Canon 600mm f/2.8L IS L or just stick with the f/4 version and look like an amateur. Oh but ... ;D

;D

If people read the text I wrote above (instead of catching the comic part), I said the 24-70F4L is better for most occasions than the 2.8 II.

But there's truth in what I said, in many places only 2.8s are allowed, anything less is "ameteur". My main lens is 70-200 2.8, but the next one after that is 24-105 F4LIS. And I consider myself purely amateur.

 

[Besisika]

Many people complain about the necessity of Image stabilization at wide angle lenses...

Here are some hand held shots which show the benefits...

http://delightphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/8/image-stabilization-in-wide-angle-lenses

The key is in what you are doing with your photography.

Currently, the widest I have is the 24-70 f4IS. Believe it or not but I bought that lens for handheld video and sport panning, and for both without IS it would be useless. I can't find any lens that can suit better my need. I am really stunned by the IS on handheld video.

I am expanding my photography to wide angle and wondering if he 16-35 would be a better choice for me.
I was planning on buying the 35 1.4 for low light (for me 2.8 is not for photographers, at least 1.4 - LOL - give the guy a break, he has received way too many punches already) and a 16-28 Tokina for wide angle on full frame.

 

[mackguyver]

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is a full manual lens that you have to stop down to figure out the exposure.
Which again dims the viewfinder and you cannot really tell what is in focus and what is not.
The distortion is quite shocking as well. It is cheap, OK. I have it and I am still climbing the learning curve. I am not sure if I 'll keep it.

Rokinon is easy. Dial in F8, focus at 1m (3ft) and you're set. (Hyperfocal is <1 meter) No need to be able to tell if something is in focus or not, because everything will be.

For distortion, there's LR profile you can use. It doesn't make it great, but it helps. For the price, it's amazing lens.

It seems that the new 16-35 f/4 IS is optically superior to the f/2.8 lens. The IS gives you two apertures that can help you get your shot –unless the subject is moving, of course. Do you actually buy lenses because they are 'cool' or was that a joke?

Anyone who considers himself (/herself) a photographer, should only buy 2.8 or faster. You can easily spot the amateurs carrying the F4s around.

To your first point, anyone who has relied on hyperfocal focusing hasn't taken the time and trouble to check their images for critical sharpness. Hyperfocal focusing is a kludge that guarantees practically nothing, including most times the subject, is actually in focus.

And to your second, anyone who believes that is an idiot, just look at the likes of Joel Grimes (who uses a 24-105 f4 almost exclusively for his subjects), or even CR's own Sporgon, who also churns out the highest quality work with f4 lenses. There are countless pros, and very experienced non pros, shooting the highest quality images with f4 lenses.

Well said - on both!

 

[sanj]

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is a full manual lens that you have to stop down to figure out the exposure.
Which again dims the viewfinder and you cannot really tell what is in focus and what is not.
The distortion is quite shocking as well. It is cheap, OK. I have it and I am still climbing the learning curve. I am not sure if I 'll keep it.

Rokinon is easy. Dial in F8, focus at 1m (3ft) and you're set. (Hyperfocal is <1 meter) No need to be able to tell if something is in focus or not, because everything will be.

For distortion, there's LR profile you can use. It doesn't make it great, but it helps. For the price, it's amazing lens.

It seems that the new 16-35 f/4 IS is optically superior to the f/2.8 lens. The IS gives you two apertures that can help you get your shot –unless the subject is moving, of course. Do you actually buy lenses because they are 'cool' or was that a joke?

Anyone who considers himself (/herself) a photographer, should only buy 2.8 or faster. You can easily spot the amateurs carrying the F4s around.

You make a fool of yourself when you write crap like that. Sorry to put it so bluntly.

 

[Busted Knuckles]

I like mine. I have to admit that I had always avoided anything wider than 24 because of the distortion. Seems it spends a lot more time on my camera than most the others. Like the range, IQ is plenty, and f4 seems OK as the ISO bump is only a stop and I don't shoot low light all that often - except the stars, need to get something for stars.

Good

 

[Busted Knuckles]

It seems that the new 16-35 f/4 IS is optically superior to the f/2.8 lens. The IS gives you two apertures that can help you get your shot –unless the subject is moving, of course. Do you actually buy lenses because they are 'cool' or was that a joke?

Anyone who considers himself (/herself) a photographer, should only buy 2.8 or faster. You can easily spot the amateurs carrying the F4s around.

What a bunch of skin flints - just need to buy the Leica and adapt to the camera. http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2012/08/worlds-most-expensive-lens-unsurprisingly-leica

oops it is a 5.6 too. (kick at the dirt) guess I'll never amount to anything, even I can't afford a 5.6!

lol!

 

[Khalai]

Anyone who considers himself (/herself) a photographer, should only buy 2.8 or faster. You can easily spot the amateurs carrying the F4s around.

So, by your definition, 300/4L, 400/4 DO, 600/4L or 800/5.6L and 100-400/4.5-5.6L or 200-400/4L+TC are all just amateur lenses? And my trusty but rusty 50/1.4 is considered a very professional lens (4x faster than 2.8)?

 

[Marsu42]

I like mine. I have to admit that I had always avoided anything wider than 24 because of the distortion.

Um, seems like you're missing the point of an uwa zoom and would be better served with a 24-70/4? For "no distortion" straight out of camera you're better off with a wide prime afaik.

And my trusty but rusty 50/1.4 is considered a very professional lens (4x faster than 2.8)?

Unfortunately, the fallacy gear xyz equals "professional" or "good photog" is very common. I'm cured since I read some books on flash photography, wedding and lighting and all those people used the 24-105/4, often stopped down to f5.6. Having shot some people scenes, I can sympathize - unless you are desperate for the light gathering of f2.8 it's not worth it for having people out of focus.

At least with my f4 lens setup, I can at least consider myself competent by owning a 50/1.8 :->

 

[Khalai]

Unfortunately, the fallacy gear xyz equals "professional" or "good photog" is very common. I'm cured since I read some books on flash photography, wedding and lighting and all those people used the 24-105/4, often stopped down to f5.6. Having shot some people scenes, I can sympathize - unless you are desperate for the light gathering of f2.8 it's not worth it for having people out of focus.

At least with my f4 lens setup, I can at least consider myself competent by owning a 50/1.8 :->

Well, the only reason I have 2.8 zooms is luck I was fed up with my 70-200/4 IS being repaired twice for focus ring slipping issue and second-hand 70-200/2.8 II for a mere third more was too good to pass. Same with 24-70/2.8 II. I got it for just quarter more than 24-70/4 was at the time before the big price drop.

As for aperture for group shots. I've read somewhere that you should keep your aperture first number higher than the number of people you want sharp up to f/8 (considering usual focal lenghts and usual distance of course). IDK if there is some precision to it, but it served me pretty well on weddings I've done in the past.

 

[e17paul]

As for aperture for group shots. I've read somewhere that you should keep your aperture first number higher than the number of people you want sharp up to f/8 (considering usual focal lenghts and usual distance of course). IDK if there is some precision to it, but it served me pretty well on weddings I've done in the past.

That seems to be a really good rule of thumb for keeping a group of unpredictable humans in focus.

 

[deleteme]

As for aperture for group shots. I've read somewhere that you should keep your aperture first number higher than the number of people you want sharp up to f/8 (considering usual focal lenghts and usual distance of course). IDK if there is some precision to it, but it served me pretty well on weddings I've done in the past.

My last group was 80 people. I am sure my flash could not overpower f90.

 

[tpatana]

I like mine. I have to admit that I had always avoided anything wider than 24 because of the distortion.

Um, seems like you're missing the point of an uwa zoom and would be better served with a 24-70/4? For "no distortion" straight out of camera you're better off with a wide prime afaik.

And my trusty but rusty 50/1.4 is considered a very professional lens (4x faster than 2.8)?

Unfortunately, the fallacy gear xyz equals "professional" or "good photog" is very common. I'm cured since I read some books on flash photography, wedding and lighting and all those people used the 24-105/4, often stopped down to f5.6. Having shot some people scenes, I can sympathize - unless you are desperate for the light gathering of f2.8 it's not worth it for having people out of focus.

At least with my f4 lens setup, I can at least consider myself competent by owning a 50/1.8 :->

50/1.8 is the first pro lens most people buy.