Photozone Review of the 16-35mm f/4L IS

[Sporgon]

Petty that a site with photozone's reputation gives a throw away comment about IQ being slightly lower with IS activated, but doesn't give any factual evidence for this comment.

I've long felt that on the 24-105 the IS can reduce resolution compared to when it's off , given appropriate shutter speeds, yet when I have tried to proof it the results are inconclusive, as if it's a random event.

 

[Loswr]

They could take this exact lens formula at 24mm, remove the zoom capability, and you'd have one of the best 24mm prime lenses on the market. That just sounds wrong to me.

Maybe sort of? The 16-35f4IS is achieving nearly zero distortion, nothing else comes close except the 24mm TS-E.

It just looks like one of those things that can be done but no-one bothers.

I'm sure it could be done. Would you pay $1199 for a 24mm f/4 IS prime lens with nearly no distortion? Maybe you would, but you'd be in a fiscally irrelevant minoroty as far as Canon is concerned.

How much of that cost is tied up in the zoom mechanism itself? How much is the optical formula limited by the requirement that it has to look good across the entire zoom range?
I have to wonder if this isn't another case like the Otus and Sigma 50A, where a counter-intuitive design decision could achieve superior results.

(As I type this I'm probably thinking of the Sigma 24A rumors in the back of my mind)

Even at half the price, I sincerely doubt any manufacturer would think it a good idea to develop a 24mm f/4 prime lens. Sorry, it's a non-starter.

 

[raptor3x]

I thought I had a good copy of the Tokina 16-28 but Photozone's results show their copy as being significantly superior to both the 17 TS-E and 16-35 IS at the wide end in terms of corner resolution. This was definitely not my experience.

According to Photozone, @ 16 to 17 mm and f/4, Tokina 16-28, 17 TSE and 16-35 IS all have similar corner sharpness. By f/8, the 16-35 IS lags slightly behind Tokina 16-28 and 17 TSE in corner sharpness.

I do not know if you are looking at the correct numbers.

I had meant mid-frame rather than corner resolution. But still, even looking at the corners I see my 16-35 being significantly better than the shots from my Tokina. This might suggest that even though I tried 4 copies of the Tokina and picked the best one, maybe all of them were decentered.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I understand that projects with high resolution zoom lens has a disadvantage in chromatic aberration. Those projects that have zero distortion, vignetting is a disadvantage. For these reasons, no zoom lens that is able to overcome prime lenses in ALL aspects of quality, in the same lens. It is a matter of choice: What amount of vignetting, chromatic aberration, geometric distortion, I'm willing to accept in exchange for sharpness, contrast and colors.
However, Canon 16-35 F4 is a great option against your competitors.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

At 24mm the EF 16-35mm might be nearly distortion free but it also has the worst border and corner resolution wide open at 24mm and it has the worst chromatic aberrations throughout the aperture range.
Image distortion is not the only factor in image quality. With good lens profiles minor image distortion is not a big deal.

16-35 f/4 IS at 24mm has less CA of all types (including longitudinal purple fringing) than the 24 1.4 II or 24 2.8 non-IS (I don't know about the 24 IS CA; I know the 24 T&S II has low CA)

I meant the EF 16-35mm has the worst chromatic aberrations at 24mm compared to the other focal lengths of the lens.

Compared to other Canon lenses the border CA of the EF 16-35mm at 24 mm is good (the TS-E 24 II is better though), but the EF 16-35mm is outperformed on Border CA by something like the Sigma AF 12-24mm at 24mm.

9VIII wrote: They could take this exact lens formula at 24mm, remove the zoom capability, and you'd have one of the best 24mm prime lenses on the market.

If you look at image distortion that might be true but there is a lot more to a lens. The point I tried to make is that you might get one aspect nearly perfect but that usually means you have to compromise on other aspects.

But as you say it still has among the lowest lateral CA at 24mm of any lens AND it has almost zero longitudinal CA at 24mm (not many places mention that nasty type of CA)