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

[JoFT]

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

 

[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!

 

[martti]

8) Nice shooting, JoFT. Looks like you are really enjoying your toyool.
For me it looks ike I am having a problem whether to upgrade the 24-70 f/2.8 to version II or get this one.
I do not really need more glass...

 

[Ryan85]

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 recently spent 3 weeks in Europe traveling all over. Inside catherdals and many places tripods weren't allowed or to much of a hassle with so many people. And let me tell you the IS on the 16-35 worked wonders for getting hand held shots in extremely low light. Without it Theres know way I would've gotten those shots hand held at the slow shutter speed I needed.

 

[Marsu42]

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

So what? I didn't read anyone disputing that if your're shooting in dim light and nothing moves (or you wan motion blur), IS can be very handy to have. But do you get down to optimal ISO with IS? Probably not.

So in my book, using a tripod for the kinds of shots on your blog is still to preferred unless you're only targeting web size. And esp. in this case, an old and shaggy 17-40L (when used properly) will be indistinguishable from the newest and shiniest lens marvel in Canon's lineup.

 

[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 recently spent 3 weeks in Europe traveling all over. Inside catherdals and many places tripods weren't allowed or to much of a hassle with so many people. And let me tell you the IS on the 16-35 worked wonders for getting hand held shots in extremely low light. Without it Theres know way I would've gotten those shots hand held at the slow shutter speed I needed.

Coincidentally I was in France in September doing very similar things! I was using the 24-105 and 17-40, I can't quite afford the new 16-35 yet! When in France these sort of shots are compulsory as far as I am concerned. Admittedly I do use a 1DX so I can let the ISO rise quite a bit before it concerns me.
As stated, these days, I find very little use for IS, I am not saying it is not handy occasionally but I am getting more keepers on my long lenses without it and have little/no use for it on short lenses. As such I would speculate that the 16-35 F4 might have been an even better (and slightly cheaper) lens without IS and the extra element + bulk that it involves. Either way it seems to be a lovely lens and I will be investing in one as and when I can afford one!

 

[Marsu42]

So in my book, using a tripod for the kinds of shots on your blog is still to preferred unless you're only targeting web size. And esp. in this case, an old and shaggy 17-40L (when used properly) will be indistinguishable from the newest and shiniest lens marvel in Canon's lineup.

lol.. maybe you have to open your eyes, get glasses and look at the corners.
or maybe you just have no clue....

If your 17-40L wasn't tack sharp, probably it wasn't properly afma'd or you had a broken lens. Or you're probably not able to handle it - in this case, IS certainly is a big help to get less blur.

 

[JoFT]

8) Nice shooting, JoFT. Looks like you are really enjoying your toyool.
For me it looks ike I am having a problem whether to upgrade the 24-70 f/2.8 to version II or get this one.
I do not really need more glass...

I would go to extend my range: 16-35 and 24-70 is more comlimentary... And the 16-35 is a really great lens... independently from the IS...

 

[Hjalmarg1]

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

I personally found IS very handy. It increases the keepers at low shooter speeds, such as 1/2-1/3s without increasing ISO.

 

[tpatana]

Everyone can shoot as they please, but I don't understand how someone can say there's no need for IS on lenses.

Yes, there's lot of shoots when there's absolutely no need for IS. But aside from some rumors, I've never seen evidence that IS degrades photo, save for that split second when it spins up. So I don't understand why you'd leave it off, since it might save the shot you took.

Plus I can think of lot of places when you want to use it. If someone don't, then their photo-style doesn't include such scenes.

But from 16-35/2.8 vs. F4IS, I'd probably take the 2.8 just because everyone thinks 2.8 is cool. For most shoots, the F4IS would probably be better.

 

[JoFT]

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

I personally found IS very handy. It increases the keepers at low shooter speeds, such as 1/2-1/3s without increasing ISO.

I totally agree. I love to have the IS. It makes things easier... And you do not need to have a tripod with you all the time...

 

[JoFT]

Everyone can shoot as they please, but I don't understand how someone can say there's no need for IS on lenses.

Yes, there's lot of shoots when there's absolutely no need for IS. But aside from some rumors, I've never seen evidence that IS degrades photo, save for that split second when it spins up. So I don't understand why you'd leave it off, since it might save the shot you took.

Plus I can think of lot of places when you want to use it. If someone don't, then their photo-style doesn't include such scenes.

But from 16-35/2.8 vs. F4IS, I'd probably take the 2.8 just because everyone thinks 2.8 is cool. For most shoots, the F4IS would probably be better.

In this case I would like to go for a prime in addition, f.i. the 14mm f2.8 Rokinon/Samyang/Walimex Lens or even more extrem...

 

[martti]

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.

The EF 20mm f/2.8 is an old design, nothing spectacular but a very useful thing in my bag. I've had it from the times of my EOS-5.

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?

 

[gargamel]

My 0.02 EUR.

IS makes a lot of sense in a wide angle lens. One scenario was mentioned here: Tripods not allowed or just not at hand. Looking at my (very amateurish) photos of recent years, I found quite a few that are slightly blurred or just a little "soft", and I think with support of IS many of them would have been sharp.

IS is useless in good lighting conditions or for moving subjects, of course. But as a matter of fact, most subjects you would use a wide angle lens for don't move, at all: "inside" and "outside" architecture, landscapes etc. With less than optimal lighting IS can assist you very well, I think.

On the other hand, Fujifilm announced its upcoming 16-50 mm/f2.8 lens to come without IS --- for maximum IQ and less weigh.

gargamel

 

[e17paul]

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

I personally found IS very handy. It increases the keepers at low shooter speeds, such as 1/2-1/3s without increasing ISO.

I totally agree. I love to have the IS. It makes things easier... And you do not need to have a tripod with you all the time...

I ony wish I had known this lens was coming when I bought my 24 IS.

 

[tpatana]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[Jim K]

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

 

[gargamel]

A bit OT, but while I have read lots of positive reviews about the Canon EF 16-35mm f4, before buying it, I want to get
(1) a full-frame camera (my 5D1 has died, and fixing it is just economical nonsense)
(2) a view on the SP 15-30mm F/2.8 Di VC USD, for which Tamron made a development announcement at the Photokina 2014. This promises to be a real contender, but let's see.

gargamel

 

[Deleted member 91053]

OMG! I am a complete idiot (not even an amateur!) my 800mm is an F5.6!!!!@!!!!!! I really wanted the F2 model but couldn't afford the Range Rover to put it on! What an ill informed comment about F2.8 (pretty slow lenses) comment!
Back to the 16-35 F4 L IS. To me IS has it's uses but they do not occur very often, mainly because I am quite happy to shoot at ISO 8000 or a touch higher. Given the ISOs that I can now use then most of the time IS is merely a dead piece of glass between my sensor and my subject and anything extra between you and the subject is never good.
Having said that the new 16-35 F4 looks like the perfect wide lens for me, I just think it could have been a touch better without IS.
Just my 2p.