Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS

Sort by date Sort by votes
#42
brad-man said:
The 16-35 f/4L is the finest UWA zoom that Canon has ever produced in absolutely every aspect other than aperture. If you need to stop action in low light without a flash, then it is not the lens for you. For everyone else that wants to upgrade, it's a no-brainer. I don't have a 2.8 to compare it to but I have compared it to my 17-40, and when I sell the 17-40, I'm going to feel guilty accepting money for it ;)
Click to expand...

+1
 
Upvote 0
#43
Called my usual Canon crack dealer. He's getting his inventory next week. Told me straight away 6000 duo so it'll be around 6500CNY. Equal or better price than Taobao (standing at 6800 right now) as usual with him. For the rest of the world that's roughly 1100 USD, "tax included". Way better than the 1200 EUR in my home country.

HK isn't all the rage ;)

For CanonNN, grumbaki reporting from western china.
 
Upvote 0
#45
Upvote 0
#46
Lawliet said:
abcde12345 said:
I understand that but merely considering the image quality?
Click to expand...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=773&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
Not much difference, other factors will most likely dominate.
So we're back to handling and utility for other uses, thats where the Canon wins in my book.
Click to expand...

It does seem as if the Canon is marginally better IQ wise but I agree with the review where it says its slightly weaker in the centre of the frame.

I looked at the comparison to the Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5 and this new lens SMOKES my current wide angle! Go Canon!!!
 
Upvote 0
#47
I think this lens, along with the 24-70IIL and 70-200LIS II will out perform 99% of the photographer's using it :D
Looking over the reviews and posted results here's my take:
The new 16-35 f4 LIS has less distortions in the far corner (less image stretching). It looks slightly wider than the 16-35IIL too. The wide open sharpness is amazing, as are the corner sharpness...stopped down the difference is less noticable. The colours and contrast look a lot more vibrant, but could be due to a 1/3 under exposure with the f4....time will tell. The 16 point sun stars are new to Canon and look different, not sure if I like or dislike....just different. It's now easier to tell which lens was used with a sunny landscape picture.
The IS unit for me is irrelevant. The time it would take for the image to stabilise would make this feature less useful to me. I miss the extra stop of the f2.8. The flare control looks very good and the new coatings look better....especially for cleaning. It's quite big for what it is....but hey, it works great. At last a wide zoom lens hood which doesn't look rediculous. This one might actually protect the lens from damage.
If I had a 24-70IIL and this lens in my bag, I might get confused which one is which...they look really simular.
77mm threads, great...but erm the 24-70IIL has gone from 77 to 82mm....step ups gonna be needed.
But the real IQ advantage which no one else seems to have noticed is the lack of CA compared to the f2.8 II L.
This new f4 lens seems to have pretty much zero CA, where as the 16-35IIL really needs correcting for most images (I have a preset just for this lens in Light Room to correct CA, vignetting and distortion). CA is a blight, correctable but an irratation for sure. I've been using my TS-e 17mm a lot more recently because it needs less post prod (ironically) than my 16-35IIL.
Looking at the results from this lens, pushes me to sreiously consider one....but i think I'll wait a year for the price to drop to more realistic levels. All you fan boys with deep pockets....go for it! It's a stunner with some clear advantages over the existing models.
 
Upvote 0
#52
neuroanatomist said:
Ruined said:
Except when you are forced to 12800+ ISO on the f/4 IS to compensate for less light entering the camera due to a maximum aperture of f/4 at a dim event, in which case the IQ of the 16-35 f/2.8L II at f/2.8-ISO 6400 will be far superior. f/4 lets in half the light of f/2.8, meaning you will be forced into motion-blur inducing shutter speeds or very high isos in dim light with moving subjects. IS can't help motion blur. I did see you qualify with your statements with "unless you need f/2.8," but the rest of your post seems to ignore these important issues.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The extra stop of the f/2.8 lens is certainly needed in some cases. Looking over my EXIF, for me that need is very, very rare.
Click to expand...

Yep, and when it is really dark even 2.8 may not work. F2 and wider would be required.
 
Upvote 0
#53
privatebydesign said:
mackguyver said:
Ruined said:
I have both, and use the 24mm 1.4 when I can - because 1.4 is much better than 2.8 :D

It is true that shooting people at 16mm is a challenge. But, if you keep them dead center, generally most of the distortion is avoided. If you do it right, you can actually make some quite impressive photos where you essentially isolate a mostly-undistorted subject via distorton (instead of say bokeh).

Generally I use the 16-35 for parts of events where 24 won't be wide enough, or for the ultimate in environmental portraiture. Is having 16-23mm absolutely 100% necessary? Probably not, but then again those unique shots is what can make your work stand out.
Click to expand...
You're correct, and in my case, I never had clients who appreciated that type of shot, so I never went for it. I've seen some amazing bridal shots and portraits with 12 and 14mm lenses, so it's definitely possible if used correctly and I'm sure you've taken some great ones :)
Click to expand...

One very cool thing you can do with shift lenses is shift to the side and then frame a person on the opposite side to the shift, doing this you can put a person on the extreme edge of a 17mm shot with no distortion.
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
Upvote 0
#54
"Look, you're happy with the 16-35/f2.8L II and for you it has value so keep it.

For most everyone else it now has no value - or at least not $1700 worth of value and quite possibly not even $1200 of value."

I find this comment to be a little over the top.
If you have two great images exactly the same and you add a little contrast and sharpening to the L II...
...there really will be not much to talk about here.

I also think we will see the price of the II come down a little as the new lens should have that effect on the LII.

The LII still has f/2.8 and less distortion, so I am thinking this is pretty much a wash. I am not selling my LII.
Now if Canon comes out with a 14-24 f/2.8 (with or without IS) to rival the Nikkor...I will reconsider my above statement.
 
Upvote 0
#55
Just picked mine up this morning and that's probably the last time I buy from B&H. "Expedited" shipping was UPS Ground and they require signature and blocked all options for alternate delivery other than picking it up on the other side of town at the UPS airport terminal. I don't know why they wouldn't let me re-route to a UPS Store at the very least. Very annoyed to waste over an hour of my day.

Also very excited to have the lens, though :D
 
Upvote 0
#56
mackguyver said:
Just picked mine up this morning and that's probably the last time I buy from B&H. "Expedited" shipping was UPS Ground and they require signature and blocked all options for alternate delivery other than picking it up on the other side of town at the UPS airport terminal. I don't know why they wouldn't let me re-route to a UPS Store at the very least. Very annoyed to waste over an hour of my day.

Also very excited to have the lens, though :D
Click to expand...

I think your problem is with UPS and not with B&H. Let B&H know of your issues, they might swing their postal contract in future.
 
Upvote 0
#58
GMCPhotographics said:
I think your problem is with UPS and not with B&H. Let B&H know of your issues, they might swing their postal contract in future.
Click to expand...
No, it's actually with B&H because when I went to the MyUPS page to authorize delivery without signature or re-route to a UPS Store, those and every other option other than picking it up at the UPS distribution center were all listed as "Not authorized per shipper's request" or something like that, which I have never seen from any other shippers other than one time I ordered some really expensive jewelry for my wife. Usually I can release the signature or at least send it to a UPS store, where you still have to show your ID and sign for it. B&H has also done the "direct signature required" for orders under $20, which really irritates me as well. We can't all be home all day waiting for the delivery guy.

Anyways, sorry for the rant, but I hate it when people waste my time, especially as a consultant paid by the hour.
 
Upvote 0
#59
lycan said:
To those that say that the f/4 IS is only sharper in the corners comparing to the 2.8 IS II, have you seen this review?

http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/review-canon-16-35-f4l-is-vs-16-35-f2-8l-ii/

maybe then, you will change your mind. The f/4 IS, is sharper in the corners and in the center, wide open or not, and on the wide and tele end.
It's sharper from 16mm to 35mm in all apertures, except 2.8 ofc
Click to expand...

At 12800+ ISO due to lack of light at f/4 at a dim event, the f/4L IS will be fuzzier and noisier than the f/2.8L II at f/2.8 ISO 6400. So to answer your question, no :)
 
Upvote 0
#60
Ruined said:
lycan said:
To those that say that the f/4 IS is only sharper in the corners comparing to the 2.8 IS II, have you seen this review?

http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/review-canon-16-35-f4l-is-vs-16-35-f2-8l-ii/

maybe then, you will change your mind. The f/4 IS, is sharper in the corners and in the center, wide open or not, and on the wide and tele end.
It's sharper from 16mm to 35mm in all apertures, except 2.8 ofc
Click to expand...

At 12800+ ISO due to lack of light at f/4 at a dim event, it will be fuzzier and noisier at all apertures than the f/2.8L II at f/2.8 ISO 6400. So to answer your question, no :)
Click to expand...

That's probably the only case in your favor :)
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Review: Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM
Replies
124
Views
48K
stevelee
stevelee
Canon Rumors
Patent: Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM
Replies
37
Views
30K
David - Sydney
D
V
Need help, buying Cannon EOS R: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM v. RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Replies
16
Views
9K
SteveC
SteveC
Canon Rumors
Review: Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II by TDP
Replies
30
Views
9K
gcrimmins
G
Canon Rumors
Canon Announces the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II
Replies
318
Views
56K
Steve Dmark2
Steve Dmark2
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu