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

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f4l-is/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/review-canon-ef-16-35mm-f4l-is/">Tweet</a></div>
<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Bryan over at The Digital Picture</a> has completed his review of the brand new <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=NUL454G4IQMXV4JR" target="_blank">Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS</a>. I think everyone is hoping Canon has finally upped the quality of their L series ultra wide angle zoom lenses.</p>
<p><strong>Says Bryan about the new lens

</strong><em>“<span style="color: #222222;">Canon’s ultra-wide angle zoom lenses have long been very good performers. I have them and use them, but I was never overly excited by them – until now. The focal length range is not new and the max aperture in this range was already covered by another high quality lens. But, the Canon <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=NUL454G4IQMXV4JR" target="_blank">EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens</a> adds one critical feature – image stabilization. That feature alone gives this lens a huge value to me. Equally or more exciting is the image quality being delivered by this lens. If prime-lens-grade corner-of-the-frame image quality is something you appreciate in your ultra-wide angle lens, you are going to love this lens. Add a state-of-the-art AF system and the 16-35 f/4 L IS becomes a must-have lens… <strong><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">read the rest of the review</a></strong>“</span></em></p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS $1199: <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=NUL454G4IQMXV4JR" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[siegsAR]

Bryan:

"The good news is that the corners of the 16-35 f/4 L IS are very impressive – prime-like."

"..snip...that will show the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens performing clearly superior to the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens and comparing remarkably well even against the excellent Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens."

That will bring a lot of smile.

 

[Loswr]

Darn you, Bryan...

Time to sell my 16-35/2.8L II.

 

[iMagic]

On my ipad the 16-35 corners looked better than the zeiss 15mm

 

[Ruined]

Darn you, Bryan...

Time to sell my 16-35/2.8L II.

The quality of this lens has been evident for a week or two or more now. There was some guy PhilA that posted pics and the corners are pretty good.

IMHO the 16-35/f4L reduces the value of the all previous wide angle zooms to sub-$400, if that.

Unless you need f/2.8, the 17-40 and 16-35 are just not worth having on a FF Canon now that this lens is here.

The only purpose they have now is for a mid-range zoom on APS-C cameras.

That's not to say that people won't find a buyers for the 16-35/f2.8 at ~$1195 or more because there are always uninformed buyers that want to be robbed of their money.

If you now offered me a 16-35/f2.8L II for free, I'd say "No thank you."

So if you haven't sold your wide angle zoom already then your chances of getting close to your money back are quickly evaporating. Can you beat the thundering heard of other owners that rush to offload their lens?

Bryan's closing remark echos my thoughts:

No other Canon or Canon-mount ultra-wide angle zoom lens can touch this one.

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.

This f/4 IS is a great lens for landscape users, but for pros who do events it is no substitute or replacement for the f/2.8L II. And I am sure many pros will be happy to take 16-35mm f/2.8L II lenses off people's hands for a low price

I do agree that the 17-40mm f/4L is far outclassed now, though, and will likely be discontinued once the existing stock is depleted at blowout prices.

 

[KyleSTL]

IMHO the 16-35/f4L reduces the value of the all previous wide angle zooms to sub-$400, if that.

That's what excited me most about this annoucement. While a 17-40mm won't have nearly as good image quality as the new 16-35 IS, it will certainly be a huge step up from my current film-era Tamron UWA. I plan to jump on a 17-40mm as soon as they sink into the $400 range.

EDIT: Also Nikon should be thoroughly embarrassed by the performance of their 16-35mm VR, especially at the wide end:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=689&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[Loswr]

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.

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.

 

[mackguyver]

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.

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.

Yes, see this post for an example - the difference between 1/25s & 1/50s can be critical even when people are just walking

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Darn you, Bryan...

Time to sell my 16-35/2.8L II.

I already did and my new 16-35mm f4L IS lens is on the way.

 

[Ruined]

The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is only 1 stop.

I can't help but wonder if a 16-35/f4L IS and one of the other (24,28,35) primes with IS for low light would be the way to go.

I have a 24mm f/1.4L and 35mm f/2 IS USM. But neither are zooms that can range from UWA all the way to wide normal range, and neither can do wider than 24mm. I also have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, which is a zoom - but once again cannot do wider than 24mm.

"only 1 stop" means you lose half the light. It means the difference between a usable ISO 6400 and very noisy ISO 12800, or the difference between a sharp picture and one affected by motion blur due to slow shutter speeds. Unless all of your events are outside in the daytime, f/4 honestly is not flexible enough to consider for events, as the optimal shot may call for something quite wide without flash. You can use primes in dim light, but there will be times when the flexibility of a zoom is needed for the event, or you simply need something wider than 24mm. Enter the 16-35mm f/2.8L II.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Also see the review on the Photography Blog website: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_16_35mm_f4_l_is_usm_review/
they come to the same conclusions. Thanks God my new lens is on the way.

 

[Ruined]

"only 1 stop" means you lose half the light. It means the difference between a usable ISO 6400 and very noisy ISO 12800, or the difference between a sharp picture and one affected by motion blur due to slow shutter speeds. Unless all of your events are outside in the daytime, f/4 honestly is not flexible enough to consider for events, as the optimal shot may call for something quite wide without flash. You can use primes in dim light, but there will be times when the flexibility of a zoom is needed for the event, or you simply need something wider than 24mm. Enter the 16-35mm f/2.8L II.

If you are so worried about high ISO IQ, get the Sony A7S.

Well, aside from that being completely off topic, mirrorless camera battery life is not even close to being long enough to be worth considering at this point for my use, and I don't want to be fiddling with adapters with poor autofocus speed or an insufficient lens/accessory ecosystem.

 

[mackguyver]

Thanks God my new lens is on the way.

Mine is sitting at UPS...across town..don't know if I'll have time to get over there today :'(

At least it looks like a winner, so my 16-35 f/2.8 II wasn't sold in vain

 

[bainsybike]

Bryan's closing remark echos my thoughts:

No other Canon or Canon-mount ultra-wide angle zoom lens can touch this one.

Far be it from me to argue, but he hasn't tried them all. EF-M 11-22?

 

[SwnSng]

I'm sticking with my nikon 14-24 2.8 - I love doing Astrophotography and at f/4 I would have to turn up iso to 6400. I am definitely missing AF but I use this lens 99% of the time when it's on a tripod. Holding out until Canon either rleases a 14-24 or a 12-24 both at 2.8.

 

[Otter]

Bryan's closing remark echos my thoughts:

No other Canon or Canon-mount ultra-wide angle zoom lens can touch this one.

Far be it from me to argue, but he hasn't tried them all. EF-M 11-22?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I don't think the EF-S lenses measure up against L Glass, at least in my experience with them.

 

[Dylan777]

Reading all these reviews, my GAS shifted to higher gear.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Good lens. Maybe not quite the biting microcontrast of the 24-70 II though, but it does FF edges well and it fights off longitudinal CA (purple/green front of focal plane/behind focal plane) very well (as well as any standard or wide zoom, maybe best of all, 20mm and above and even at 16mm the LoCA/PF is very small). Lateral 1st order CA (red/green) is basically non-existant above 18-19mm or so, there is just a tiny bit at 16mm. There are small amounts of 2nd order (blue/yellow) CA. Distortion is super low around 20mm-35mm (much less at 24mm than the 24-70 II), there is some at 16mm though.

Complex scenes still need much stop down (f/10-f/11) for sharp extreme corners though at wider to mid-range. For flat scenes, it hits corners well already at f/5-6.3.

 

[bainsybike]

Bryan's closing remark echos my thoughts:

No other Canon or Canon-mount ultra-wide angle zoom lens can touch this one.

Far be it from me to argue, but he hasn't tried them all. EF-M 11-22?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I don't think the EF-S lenses measure up against L Glass, at least in my experience with them.

I did say EF-M 11-22, but you're probably right anyway. It's just that he hasn't tried it.

 

[Otter]

Bryan's closing remark echos my thoughts:

No other Canon or Canon-mount ultra-wide angle zoom lens can touch this one.

Far be it from me to argue, but he hasn't tried them all. EF-M 11-22?

My bad for misreading your message.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I don't think the EF-S lenses measure up against L Glass, at least in my experience with them.

I did say EF-M 11-22, but you're probably right anyway. It's just that he hasn't tried it.