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

[Ruined]

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

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

That's probably the only case in your favor

It is the primary case for the 16-35 II, yes. But it is a crticially important one for event photographers that many reviewers appear to be overlooking. One has to remember one of the business goals of review sites is to drive lens sales. That is one reason forums are important, to obtain all sorts of opinions from people who usually have no vested interest in pushing a product.

Then again, most event photographers probably don't need a reviewer to note this since it is rather obvious.

 

[mackguyver]

It is the primary case for the 16-35 II, yes. But it is a crticially important one for event photographers that many reviewers appear to be overlooking. One has to remember one of the business goals of review sites is to drive lens sales. That is one reason forums are important, to obtain all sorts of opinions from people who usually have no vested interest in pushing a product.

Then again, most event photographers probably don't need a reviewer to note this since it is rather obvious.

Well said, Ruined. The reviewers are saying the same thing about the 200-400 1.4x vs. the f/2.8 primes, but when you need f/2.8, you need f/2.8

 

[lycan]

Nothing to argue about that, Ruined. You're 100% right. But I think this lens is mostly aimed at landscape photography, and for that it doesn't need f/2.8 in about 99% of the time?..

 

[Ruined]

Nothing to argue about that, Ruined. You're 100% right. But I think this lens is mostly aimed at landscape photography, and for that it doesn't need f/2.8 in about 99% of the time?..

I have said since my first response it is an outstanding landscape and travel lens. Probably one of the best on the market!

But it is no replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8L II as some have stated - simply an alternative. On the other hand, it likely will be the eventual replacement of the 17-40 f/4L.

 

[mackguyver]

Nothing to argue about that, Ruined. You're 100% right. But I think this lens is mostly aimed at landscape photography, and for that it doesn't need f/2.8 in about 99% of the time?..

I have said since my first response it is an outstanding landscape and travel lens. Probably one of the best on the market!

But it is no replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8L II as some have stated - simply an alternative. On the other hand, it likely will be the eventual replacement of the 17-40 f/4L.

Agreed (again ) and I think what people aren't getting is that sharp corners and IS aren't important when shooting events or sports. For me, I'm sick of soft corners on my detailed landscapes, but for portraits, sports, and event photos, no one will ever care about corners, which are usually out-of-focus anyways. And IS could be helpful but wouldn't be as useful for that kind of work.

All that being said, I can't wait to get out and shoot with my new f/4 IS!

 

[Ruined]

Mack, we think very much alike

 

[Loswr]

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...

Out of curiosity, did you call B&H? In the past, they've re-routed UPS shipments for my convenience and at their expense.

 

[mackguyver]

Looks like I finally got a post deleted and my apologies to the moderators for making that necessary.

Neuro, no, I guess I should have done that and would have if I'd thought about it clearly. I've just been extremely busy the last few weeks with a major deadline yesterday and millions of of tax-payer dollars on the line. I guess I'm still a little edgy and sleep-deprived

Anyways, all that aside, I'm very excited for my new lens, will definitely post some real-world samples over the weekend and I plan on comparing it to the 24-70 f/2.8 II, and possibly TS-E 17, TS-E 24, and 24 f/1.4 II. A lot will depend on the weather.

I'm planning to use it for some fireworks shots on Friday, if nothing else

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

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

That's probably the only case in your favor

It is the primary case for the 16-35 II, yes. But it is a crticially important one for event photographers that many reviewers appear to be overlooking. One has to remember one of the business goals of review sites is to drive lens sales. That is one reason forums are important, to obtain all sorts of opinions from people who usually have no vested interest in pushing a product.

Then again, most event photographers probably don't need a reviewer to note this since it is rather obvious.

Agreed. I photograph concerts and film weddings, and don't even bother to bring my 17-40 to the latter as it's just too slow. I'd like to upgrade and considered this newcomer, but f/4 is just death at a reception and so I'm looking at used 16-35 II at the moment. Maybe I should just hold out for Canon's mythical 14-24 f2.8

 

[RLPhoto]

My copy just came in. It's chunky compared to the 17-40.

 

[emko]

My copy just came in. It's chunky compared to the 17-40.

i was expecting it to be smaller then the 17-40 f4, IS takes up a lot of space or what?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Nothing to argue about that, Ruined. You're 100% right. But I think this lens is mostly aimed at landscape photography, and for that it doesn't need f/2.8 in about 99% of the time?..

I think this lens only has an image stabilizer because Nikon's version has one too. It's really not that useful for landscape work. But for general travel and site seeing...I'm sure it'll be very useful.

 

[mackguyver]

I think the IS will be nice for shots in decent light. For me, ultrawides beg to be moved around to find creative compositions before (or even instead of) being locked down on a tripod. The slightest change of position makes such a big difference with ultrawides so this intrigues me.

I just played around with my new lens and I like the build of it. I actually wish it were 82mm instead of 77mm, but the lens feels great and the IS and USM are super quiet. Can't wait to get out and really shoot with it.

 

[brad-man]

The IS will be nice for anyone using this lens without a tripod and the video crowd will dig it, and it's the only Canon UWA zoom that's ready for a higher resolution camera. It's reasonably priced. What's not to love?

 

[brad-man]

The IS will be nice for anyone using this lens without a tripod and the video crowd will dig it, and it's the only Canon UWA zoom that's ready for a higher resolution camera. It's reasonably priced. What's not to love?

What's not to love?

The price of course! It should be cheaper by $200 - $300

Will the street price drop over time? Hard to say but for a lens that is reviewing so well, why would anyone feel the need to drop the price? People want it already at the current price!

I would be surprised if this lens was discounted much for the foreseeable future (a year or two). Until Canon comes out with a new f/2.8, this is the only UWA that can hang with the 24-70ll and the 70-200ll. It also has a much more reasonable launch price than those two, and particularly the 24-70IS. That's why I jumped on the Canon introductory discount and pre-ordered it. That, and the million lens T-shirt.

 

[RLPhoto]

I did a quick compare and contrast to the 17-40L here.

http://youtu.be/YpTaVMCpfvI

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The IS will be nice for anyone using this lens without a tripod and the video crowd will dig it, and it's the only Canon UWA zoom that's ready for a higher resolution camera. It's reasonably priced. What's not to love?

What's not to love?

The price of course! It should be cheaper by $200 - $300

Will the street price drop over time? Hard to say but for a lens that is reviewing so well, why would anyone feel the need to drop the price? People want it already at the current price!

It already has! Canon (apparently accidentally) marked it as valid for the 20% off discount thing they held some weeks ago. So a few of us did get it for $200 cheaper ;D.

 

[rs]

The IS will be nice for anyone using this lens without a tripod and the video crowd will dig it, and it's the only Canon UWA zoom that's ready for a higher resolution camera. It's reasonably priced. What's not to love?

What's not to love?

The price of course! It should be cheaper by $200 - $300

Will the street price drop over time? Hard to say but for a lens that is reviewing so well, why would anyone feel the need to drop the price? People want it already at the current price!

It already has! Canon (apparently accidentally) marked it as valid for the 20% off discount thing they held some weeks ago. So a few of us did get it for $200 cheaper ;D.

Try the UK then. It's still sold everywhere for £1199, which is $2056!

 

[candyman]

The IS will be nice for anyone using this lens without a tripod and the video crowd will dig it, and it's the only Canon UWA zoom that's ready for a higher resolution camera. It's reasonably priced. What's not to love?

What's not to love?

The price of course! It should be cheaper by $200 - $300

Will the street price drop over time? Hard to say but for a lens that is reviewing so well, why would anyone feel the need to drop the price? People want it already at the current price!

It already has! Canon (apparently accidentally) marked it as valid for the 20% off discount thing they held some weeks ago. So a few of us did get it for $200 cheaper ;D .

Try the UK then. It's still sold everywhere for £1199, which is $2056!

Bought it in the Netherlands for €1099, which is $1505 - $300 more than B&H photovideo
The price shall drop but my guess is not lower than €899 ($1230) / hey it is just a guess

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The IS will be nice for anyone using this lens without a tripod and the video crowd will dig it, and it's the only Canon UWA zoom that's ready for a higher resolution camera. It's reasonably priced. What's not to love?

What's not to love?

The price of course! It should be cheaper by $200 - $300

Will the street price drop over time? Hard to say but for a lens that is reviewing so well, why would anyone feel the need to drop the price? People want it already at the current price!

It already has! Canon (apparently accidentally) marked it as valid for the 20% off discount thing they held some weeks ago. So a few of us did get it for $200 cheaper ;D.

Try the UK then. It's still sold everywhere for £1199, which is $2056!

Canon UK ramps up the UK RRP expecting the UK shops to discount heavily. But when a new product comes out, most shops sell it for the max RRP, pocketing the difference and effectively penalizing new to market gear.
When the 70-200 f2.8 LIS II hit the market, it was only available for £2500....which is silly money. So I waited about 9 months and picked up one for £1549. So my advise with the UK market is to either buy abroad or wait. If you buy new to market kit in the UK you are only feeding the greed of the UK shops and letting them get away with it.
It's your money and your choice at the end of the day, but I've found most UK Camera shops to have questionable behaviour. They charge these crazy prices because people will pay them.