Three Way Shootout against the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS + EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Red vs. Tungsten by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

After I posted my initial review of the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD several months ago, I had a lot of requests to directly compare it with the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS. I dialogued with my affiliate partners and they threw in the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II as a third comparison point. In some of these comparisons I also add the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 into the mix. I spent the last part of March and all of April on this project, and it is, to my knowledge, the most comprehensive review/comparison of its kind. This should really help those of you considering whether or not to buy this lens, as I address just about every aspect of it. For every part there is both a video and a text review:

Part 1: Specs, Build, and Objectives: http://bit.ly/1FF1GmL
YouTube Video: http://bit.ly/1Chtz0w

Part 2: Resolution: http://bit.ly/1IXtlzE"
YouTube Video: http://bit.ly/1PDblzY

Part 3: Angle of View, Distortion, and Bokeh: http://bit.ly/1cQMCJa
YouTube Video: http://bit.ly/1J2QnbO

Part 4: Flare Resistance, Astraphotography, Handling, and Conclusions: http://bit.ly/1Fsekay
YouTube Video: http://bit.ly/1OZr754

Part 5: Gallery of Favorite Images from the Review: http://bit.ly/1bMmcIA

I hope this helps those of you considering this lens. It definitely performed well in this extensive series of head to head comparisons and there is a good chance that the answers to most of your questions regarding these lenses is probably in here. I conclude with a buyer's guide and what type of photographer I feel each lens is suited to.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

P.S. Does anyone know how to directly embed YouTube videos on this forum? I've tried several different ways without success.

 

[Click]

Excellent review, Dustin. Thanks for sharing.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Excellent review, Dustin. Thanks for sharing.

My pleasure, Click. I've got a ton of time invested in this project, so I hope that it can get out there and help a lot of people.

 

[Maximilian]

Thanks again for this great informing and detailed review.

 

[meywd]

Great work Dustin, its now clear that when I upgrade my 14mm it will be the Tamron, if I don't have enough budget for the Zeiss

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks again for this great informing and detailed review.

You're welcome!

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Great work Dustin, its now clear that when I upgrade my 14mm it will be the Tamron, if I don't have enough budget for the Zeiss

The Zeiss 15mm is awesome also. It has a bit more contrast and sharpness, I would say, but also vignettes much more heavily and flares a bit more. The Tamron is pretty amazing for the price point.

 

[YellowJersey]

Hi Dustin,

Thanks for this amazing resource. I've currently got the 17-40mm f/4. It's been a very good and loyal friend to me for about 6 years, but I'm thinking it might be time for our dalliance to end as the 16-35mm f/4 is winking flirtatiously at me from behind its fan of $100 bills.

The options I'm looking at are:
Canon 16-35mm f/4 vs my current Canon 17-40mm f/4
Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 vs Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8

My questions for you, since you've used all of these lenses, are:

1) Landscapes: if I usually shoot stopped down to between f/8 and f/11, will I notice a significant difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 in terms of image quality? Landscapes in this range take up 95% of my shots, which is why I'm keen on getting the "best" lens I can, but I don't see the point in upgrading if, stopped down, the 16-35 wouldn't be sufficiently better to justify the cost. The Tamron and the Samyang aren't really an option here because I rely heavily on GND and circ pol filters, and the filter options for the bulbous lenses are too big and cumbersome for my style of shooting.

2) Starscapes: I was all set to go with the Samyang before I saw your review of the Tamron. The Samyang is still very attractive, but I'm concerned about its durability. I do a lot of hiking and cycling trips with my gear, so it needs to be able to hold up to demanding conditions. I'm fairly confident the Tamron would hold up, but not so sure about the Samyang. But, as this would be used primarily for the stars, I hesitate to go with the Tamron due to its cost. Do you think the Samyang would hold up to, say, being in my cycling panniers in a padded lens case while riding fast down a very bumpy road?

What are your thoughts? I'm not asking for you to make this decision for me, but just some advice and perspective from someone who has used all these lenses and has a good understanding of how they all perform.

 

[privatebydesign]

Great work as always Dustin.

I sold the 16-35 f2.8 MkI to get the 16-35 f4 IS, I have now ordered the 11-24 f4, time will tell if I keep the 16-35 IS........

 

[drjlo]

The Tamron just is too large and heavy for me, but the optics do seem nice..

 

[NancyP]

The Samyang 14 is as durable as any other modern consumer grade (ie, not Big Whites) lens.

 

[gobucks]

Thanks Dustin for the very detailed review! It was a huge factor in my decision to get the 16-35 F4 IS. I had been lusting after the Tamron, but my wide angle needs are mostly for vacation, and my 6D plus Tamron 24-70 VC is already cumbersome to use wandering around all day. My walk around vacation kit will consist of the 16-35 IS, 50mm STM, and 100mm F2, which COMBINED weighs about what the Tamron does.

While I absolutely love what Tamron and Sigma are releasing quality-wise, I'd really like to see them bring some love to the travel crowd with some high performing lightweight lenses with VC/OS.

As for the Canon, its amazing. At F4, its already very sharp (i dont see a difference compared to my 35 F2 IS), and the AF is lightning fast. Well built, not too bulky (although surprisingly long). And going to 35 means it can stay on the camera for street wanderings and pics of my gf in front of interesting places.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks Dustin for the very detailed review! It was a huge factor in my decision to get the 16-35 F4 IS. I had been lusting after the Tamron, but my wide angle needs are mostly for vacation, and my 6D plus Tamron 24-70 VC is already cumbersome to use wandering around all day. My walk around vacation kit will consist of the 16-35 IS, 50mm STM, and 100mm F2, which COMBINED weighs about what the Tamron does.

While I absolutely love what Tamron and Sigma are releasing quality-wise, I'd really like to see them bring some love to the travel crowd with some high performing lightweight lenses with VC/OS.

As for the Canon, its amazing. At F4, its already very sharp (i dont see a difference compared to my 35 F2 IS), and the AF is lightning fast. Well built, not too bulky (although surprisingly long). And going to 35 means it can stay on the camera for street wanderings and pics of my gf in front of interesting places.

Glad you are happy with it. It's great to have options, and there are fortunately now a number of excellent wide angle options for Canon shooters. This comparison showed me just how much advancement has been had since the 16-35mm f/2.8L II was released.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Hi Dustin,

Thanks for this amazing resource. I've currently got the 17-40mm f/4. It's been a very good and loyal friend to me for about 6 years, but I'm thinking it might be time for our dalliance to end as the 16-35mm f/4 is winking flirtatiously at me from behind its fan of $100 bills.

The options I'm looking at are:
Canon 16-35mm f/4 vs my current Canon 17-40mm f/4
Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 vs Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8

My questions for you, since you've used all of these lenses, are:

1) Landscapes: if I usually shoot stopped down to between f/8 and f/11, will I notice a significant difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 in terms of image quality? Landscapes in this range take up 95% of my shots, which is why I'm keen on getting the "best" lens I can, but I don't see the point in upgrading if, stopped down, the 16-35 wouldn't be sufficiently better to justify the cost. The Tamron and the Samyang aren't really an option here because I rely heavily on GND and circ pol filters, and the filter options for the bulbous lenses are too big and cumbersome for my style of shooting.

2) Starscapes: I was all set to go with the Samyang before I saw your review of the Tamron. The Samyang is still very attractive, but I'm concerned about its durability. I do a lot of hiking and cycling trips with my gear, so it needs to be able to hold up to demanding conditions. I'm fairly confident the Tamron would hold up, but not so sure about the Samyang. But, as this would be used primarily for the stars, I hesitate to go with the Tamron due to its cost. Do you think the Samyang would hold up to, say, being in my cycling panniers in a padded lens case while riding fast down a very bumpy road?

What are your thoughts? I'm not asking for you to make this decision for me, but just some advice and perspective from someone who has used all these lenses and has a good understanding of how they all perform.

I do think the 16-35 f/4L IS is a significant upgrade over the 17-40L in a number of ways (just about all of them). It's not just resolution stopped down, but in the additional width on the focal length, increased contrast and color fidelity, etc... I do think it is a worthy upgrade.

I have no real questions over the Samyang's durability - just make sure you get a good, centered copy to begin with. Also check to see if it has a reasonably calibrated focus ring.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The Samyang 14 is as durable as any other modern consumer grade (ie, not Big Whites) lens.

I think so - so long as it is a good copy to begin with. There are a few quirks with the lens (primarily centered around the focus ring and distance scale).

 

[mnclayshooter]

What's a good way to test for decentering on the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm? [edit: - with regard to the notes in Roger Cicala's decentering articles about ultra-wide lenses giving false-positives on star charts etc]

I haven't ever really noticed a problem with mine, but hey, worth checking if it's relatively easy. I tried searching the forum for tips - but didn't come up with much specific to that lens. Maybe I need to use different search terms.

 

[bereninga]

What's a good way to test for decentering on the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm? I haven't ever really noticed a problem with mine, but hey, worth checking if it's relatively easy. I tried searching the forum for tips - but didn't come up with much specific to that lens. Maybe I need to use different search terms.

You can just about take any sort of landscape shot (I'd try f/4 or higher) and look at the sharpness along the edges. If one entire edge is very soft compared to the other side, you probably have a decentered lens. My first copy was decentered, and I sent it in to Rokinon (same company as Samyang and Bower). The seller confirmed the issue and replaced it w/ a new copy and no issues now. The customer service was pretty quick and responsive and easy.

 

[YellowJersey]

Hi Dustin,

Thanks for this amazing resource. I've currently got the 17-40mm f/4. It's been a very good and loyal friend to me for about 6 years, but I'm thinking it might be time for our dalliance to end as the 16-35mm f/4 is winking flirtatiously at me from behind its fan of $100 bills.

The options I'm looking at are:
Canon 16-35mm f/4 vs my current Canon 17-40mm f/4
Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 vs Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8

My questions for you, since you've used all of these lenses, are:

1) Landscapes: if I usually shoot stopped down to between f/8 and f/11, will I notice a significant difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 in terms of image quality? Landscapes in this range take up 95% of my shots, which is why I'm keen on getting the "best" lens I can, but I don't see the point in upgrading if, stopped down, the 16-35 wouldn't be sufficiently better to justify the cost. The Tamron and the Samyang aren't really an option here because I rely heavily on GND and circ pol filters, and the filter options for the bulbous lenses are too big and cumbersome for my style of shooting.

2) Starscapes: I was all set to go with the Samyang before I saw your review of the Tamron. The Samyang is still very attractive, but I'm concerned about its durability. I do a lot of hiking and cycling trips with my gear, so it needs to be able to hold up to demanding conditions. I'm fairly confident the Tamron would hold up, but not so sure about the Samyang. But, as this would be used primarily for the stars, I hesitate to go with the Tamron due to its cost. Do you think the Samyang would hold up to, say, being in my cycling panniers in a padded lens case while riding fast down a very bumpy road?

What are your thoughts? I'm not asking for you to make this decision for me, but just some advice and perspective from someone who has used all these lenses and has a good understanding of how they all perform.

I do think the 16-35 f/4L IS is a significant upgrade over the 17-40L in a number of ways (just about all of them). It's not just resolution stopped down, but in the additional width on the focal length, increased contrast and color fidelity, etc... I do think it is a worthy upgrade.

I have no real questions over the Samyang's durability - just make sure you get a good, centered copy to begin with. Also check to see if it has a reasonably calibrated focus ring.

Sounds good to me. That's exactly the info I was looking for. Thanks!

As for the Samyang, it's certainly back on the table now that they've added a focus confirm chip to the newest version. It sounds like it'll make up for the quirks that comes with having an otherwise all manual lens. Hopefully, they've also improved the QC to deal with the decentering problem. Maybe it would make sense to go with the Samyang and view the Tamron as a potentially longer-term acquisition.

Thanks for your reply. I follow you on youtube. Keep the good stuff coming!

 

[mnclayshooter]

What's a good way to test for decentering on the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm? I haven't ever really noticed a problem with mine, but hey, worth checking if it's relatively easy. I tried searching the forum for tips - but didn't come up with much specific to that lens. Maybe I need to use different search terms.

You can just about take any sort of landscape shot (I'd try f/4 or higher) and look at the sharpness along the edges. If one entire edge is very soft compared to the other side, you probably have a decentered lens. My first copy was decentered, and I sent it in to Rokinon (same company as Samyang and Bower). The seller confirmed the issue and replaced it w/ a new copy and no issues now. The customer service was pretty quick and responsive and easy.

OK, that's what I've done on one other lens after (gasp) dropping it down a mountain-side trail. I was more referring to the false-positives and how to rule them out or rather, what's a good way to test and retest to detect a false positive or a decentered wide-angle lens?