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

[Tugela]

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.

How often do you need to do that? Doesn't superior IQ 99% of the time trump the other 1%?

 

[Invertalon]

Loving this lens... By far the best UWA Canon has (I have owned/used the 14L II, 17-40L and 16-35 II)

Some from me:

5D3_3339.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3474.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3434.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3462.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3456.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3426.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3404.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

5D3_3395.jpg by invertalon, on Flickr

 

[mackguyver]

Great shots Invertalon - now I'm dying to pick mine up - will have to get over to UPS in the morning.

 

[Ruined]

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.

How often do you need to do that? Doesn't superior IQ 99% of the time trump the other 1%?

I'd say about 50% of the events I do require f/2.8.

And, the superior IQ you speak of is primarily in the corners and only hugely noticeable at f/4-f/5.6 -- f/8 is close in quality and f/11 is about similar. 12800 ISO would be radically more detrimental than the lesser corner sharpness of the 16-35 II.

When I take pictures of people, they are in the center of the frame at this focal length to avoid perspective distortion. Thus, center sharpness is most important.

When I take landscape pics, which is probably only about 5-10% of my work, I usually stop down to f/8-f/11 anyway to get better DOF.

So the areas where this new lens excels are ones I don't use that much, but losing f/2.8 would be a big problem. If I was forced to sell the 16-35 II, I would use the cash for another telephoto prime, not the 16-35 f/4 IS. F/4 is simply too slow for my style/work.

 

[douglaurent]

very sharp in corners. looks even better than zeiss 15mm which is obsolete in the kit now.

 

[mackguyver]

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.

Hmm, sounds like what people say about the 50L. Every lens has it's uses and no two photographers have the same needs

very sharp in corners. looks even better than zeiss 15mm which is obsolete in the kit now.

This does look like a sad day for Zeiss 15mm owners in some regards

 

[Zv]

This is my dream lens!!! I sense a severe case of GAS coming on!

The 17-40L has been good to me but it might be time to move on. Might wait a little though, gonna see how shooting with a wide angle with IS is for me using the gateway drug EF-M 11-22 first! If I like it, which I suspect I will I'll be selling the 17-40L and buying this bad boy.

This plus a 6D and my 70-200L would make a kick ass travel kit.

 

[emko]

damn you guys just gave me GAS, here comes a 16-35mm F4

i like doing landscapes so far i have been using the 24-105mm will i like this lens? is the IQ going to be noticeably better?

 

[verysimplejason]

damn you guys just gave me GAS, here comes a 16-35mm F4

i like doing landscapes so far i have been using the 24-105mm will i like this lens? is the IQ going to be noticeably better?

I think if you're happy with 24mm, it won't. You'll only buy this lens if you want something wider than 24mm.

 

[emko]

damn you guys just gave me GAS, here comes a 16-35mm F4

i like doing landscapes so far i have been using the 24-105mm will i like this lens? is the IQ going to be noticeably better?

I think if you're happy with 24mm, it won't. You'll only buy this lens if you want something wider than 24mm.

thanks i just looked in lightroom most of my landscapes are shot at 24mm maybe i could of used something wider i hope i like it but i see it looks very sharp compared to the wide end of the 24-105mm. When i was on the 550d with 24-105 it look a lot sharper dont know why so did the 10-22mm that i used before i got the 5d3.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

I'm still shocked towards how many people feel that 2.8 is essential for an ultra wide/wide angle lens. Especially for people where the distortion is not so flattering. Even if you did use the lens professionally or artistically for an action shot like some of those old NBA advertisements at those focal lengths you'd be using proper lighting anyway and stopping down. Ridiculous justification for 2.8 for this lens. Yes, I understand Nikon has a great 2.8 UWA (which still isn't perfect either btw). But it isn't because of the aperture that their lens does well. For many years Canon has lacked some far more important things like corner sharpness, lens resolution, etc. Now we have it at a fair price and you still choke for 2.8? Like I said, ridiculous. The difference between 1/25th and 1/50th is handholding skill and tripod, nothing else. For most situations IS and one measly aperture stop can't save you much anymore, especially with today's low noise bodies. If you absolutely must stop action at an unconventional focal length, still, so many alternatives out there.

 

[abcde12345]

Anyone wanna compare it with the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8?

 

[mackguyver]

Especially for people where the distortion is not so flattering.

Yep, that's why I never used it for events, at least for people. 24mm is as wide as I'll go for people and the 24 f/1.4 II lets in twice as much light as the f/2.8.

Of course, like all things, I'll suddenly get a bunch of requests to shoot large moving groups and sports at night, now that I've sold my 16-35 f/2.8 ;D

 

[privatebydesign]

Especially for people where the distortion is not so flattering.

Yep, that's why I never used it for events, at least for people. 24mm is as wide as I'll go for people and the 24 f/1.4 II lets in twice as much light as the f/2.8.

Of course, like all things, I'll suddenly get a bunch of requests to shoot large moving groups and sports at night, now that I've sold my 16-35 f/2.8 ;D

The f1.4 let's in four times more light than an f2.8.

 

[Ruined]

Especially for people where the distortion is not so flattering.

Yep, that's why I never used it for events, at least for people. 24mm is as wide as I'll go for people and the 24 f/1.4 II lets in twice as much light as the f/2.8.

Of course, like all things, I'll suddenly get a bunch of requests to shoot large moving groups and sports at night, now that I've sold my 16-35 f/2.8 ;D

The f1.4 let's in four times more light than an f2.8.

I have both, and use the 24mm 1.4 when I can - because 1.4 is much better than 2.8

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.

 

[mackguyver]

Especially for people where the distortion is not so flattering.

Yep, that's why I never used it for events, at least for people. 24mm is as wide as I'll go for people and the 24 f/1.4 II lets in twice as much light as the f/2.8.

Of course, like all things, I'll suddenly get a bunch of requests to shoot large moving groups and sports at night, now that I've sold my 16-35 f/2.8 ;D

The f1.4 let's in four times more light than an f2.8.

Wow, it's been a long day, or couple of days actually. I can't believe I wrote that!!! Time for me to get some sleep!

 

[mackguyver]

I have both, and use the 24mm 1.4 when I can - because 1.4 is much better than 2.8

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.

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

 

[ejenner]

damn you guys just gave me GAS, here comes a 16-35mm F4

i like doing landscapes so far i have been using the 24-105mm will i like this lens? is the IQ going to be noticeably better?

Well, the 17-40 is 'better' than the 24-105 at 24mm. So I guess it depends whether you notice anything with the 24-105 at 24mm you don't like.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have both, and use the 24mm 1.4 when I can - because 1.4 is much better than 2.8

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.

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

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.

 

[brad-man]

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