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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 30, 2014)

```
<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 (Jun 30, 2014)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2014)

Darn you, Bryan... 

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


----------



## iMagic (Jun 30, 2014)

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


----------



## Ruined (Jun 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Darn you, Bryan...
> ...



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 (Jun 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> 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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2014)

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.



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 (Jun 30, 2014)

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.
> ...


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


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2014)

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 (Jun 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > "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.
> ...



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 (Jun 30, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> 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 (Jun 30, 2014)

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 (Jun 30, 2014)

bainsybike said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Bryan's closing remark echos my thoughts:
> ...



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 (Jun 30, 2014)

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


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 30, 2014)

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 (Jun 30, 2014)

Otter said:


> bainsybike said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



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


----------



## Otter (Jun 30, 2014)

bainsybike said:


> Otter said:
> 
> 
> > bainsybike said:
> ...


----------



## Tugela (Jun 30, 2014)

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.



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


----------



## Invertalon (Jun 30, 2014)

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 (Jul 1, 2014)

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


----------



## Ruined (Jul 1, 2014)

Tugela 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.
> ...



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 (Jul 1, 2014)

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


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 1, 2014)

dilbert said:


> 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 



douglaurent said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2014)

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 (Jul 1, 2014)

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 (Jul 1, 2014)

emko said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2014)

verysimplejason said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > damn you guys just gave me GAS, here comes a 16-35mm F4
> ...



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 (Jul 1, 2014)

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 (Jul 1, 2014)

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


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 1, 2014)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Chosenbydestiny said:
> 
> 
> > Especially for people where the distortion is not so flattering.
> ...



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


----------



## Ruined (Jul 1, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Chosenbydestiny said:
> ...



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 (Jul 1, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Chosenbydestiny said:
> ...


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 (Jul 1, 2014)

Ruined said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2014)

emko said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2014)

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
> ...



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 (Jul 1, 2014)

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


----------



## candyman (Jul 1, 2014)

I really enjoy my 16-35 f/4 IS but not yet enough (lack of time). I hope to go out in the weekend and do some landscape shooting


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jul 1, 2014)

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



+1


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 1, 2014)

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.


----------



## abcde12345 (Jul 1, 2014)

dilbert said:


> abcde12345 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone wanna compare it with the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8?
> ...



I understand that but merely considering the image quality? How does it fare? As far as I know previously Tokina was the champ of zoom UWA.


----------



## Lawliet (Jul 1, 2014)

abcde12345 said:


> I understand that but merely considering the image quality?



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.


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 1, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> abcde12345 said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that but merely considering the image quality?
> ...



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!!!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 1, 2014)

I think this lens, along with the 24-70IIL and 70-200LIS II will out perform 99% of the photographer's using it 
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.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 1, 2014)

I wonder if Canon are re-jigging their wide zoom range. Maybe from a 17-40L f4 and 16-35 f2.8 II L range to a 16-35mm f4 LIS and 12-24mm f2.8 ranges? 
If so, I can see both being added to my lens bag.


----------



## candyman (Jul 1, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> *I wonder if Canon are re-jigging their wide zoom range. Maybe from a 17-40L f4 and 16-35 f2.8 II L range to a 16-35mm f4 LIS and 12-24mm f2.8 ranges? *
> If so, I can see both being added to my lens bag.


 
O yes, this is my guess too. For me, for the moment, 16-35 f/4 IS is enough....for now....


----------



## digital-jesus (Jul 1, 2014)

I tested the 16-35 f4 between f / 8 and f/16. About 50 photos. I'll stick with the 17-40 because I do not see image quality to justify € 1000. Below f/8 it is wonderful


----------



## sanj (Jul 1, 2014)

I just bought one in Bombay for USD 1,131


----------



## sanj (Jul 1, 2014)

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.
> ...



Yep, and when it is really dark even 2.8 may not work. F2 and wider would be required.


----------



## sanj (Jul 1, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



Interesting.


----------



## infared (Jul 1, 2014)

_"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.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 1, 2014)

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


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 1, 2014)

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



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.


----------



## lycan (Jul 1, 2014)

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


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 1, 2014)

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.


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.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 1, 2014)

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/
> 
> ...



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


----------



## lycan (Jul 1, 2014)

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?
> ...



That's probably the only case in your favor


----------



## Ruined (Jul 1, 2014)

lycan said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > lycan said:
> ...



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 (Jul 1, 2014)

Ruined said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2014)

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 (Jul 1, 2014)

lycan said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2014)

Ruined said:


> lycan said:
> 
> 
> > 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?..
> ...


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 (Jul 1, 2014)

Mack, we think very much alike


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> 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 (Jul 1, 2014)

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 (Jul 1, 2014)

Ruined said:


> lycan said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



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 (Jul 1, 2014)

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


----------



## emko (Jul 2, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> 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 (Jul 2, 2014)

lycan said:


> 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 (Jul 2, 2014)

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 (Jul 2, 2014)

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 (Jul 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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 (Jul 2, 2014)

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

http://youtu.be/YpTaVMCpfvI


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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 (Jul 2, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



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


----------



## candyman (Jul 2, 2014)

rs said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


 
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 (Jul 2, 2014)

rs said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



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.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 2, 2014)

Good news for DxO users - they will have the profile for what looks like all or nearly all Canon bodies next month:


----------



## candyman (Jul 2, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Good news for DxO users - they will have the profile for what looks like all or nearly all Canon bodies next month:



Thanks. Looking forward to it.


----------



## emko (Jul 2, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Good news for DxO users - they will have the profile for what looks like all or nearly all Canon bodies next month:



oh yea i forgot about that anyone know how long ACR takes to get new lens profiles?


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 2, 2014)

emko said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Good news for DxO users - they will have the profile for what looks like all or nearly all Canon bodies next month:
> ...


I haven't figured out a pattern with them, but it's usually with the new ACR releases. It could be in the next one somewhere around August/September. For my architectural work the distortion correction from profiles is a huge timesaver


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 2, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



It isn't difficult or that time consuming to make your own with the free Adobe Lens Profile Creator.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 3, 2014)

IQ and IR test of the new 16-35mm f/4.

Canon EF 16-35 F4 L IS First Impressions & IQ/IR …: http://youtu.be/9NkyRMdM6k0


----------



## candyman (Jul 3, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> IQ and IR test of the new 16-35mm f/4.
> 
> Canon EF 16-35 F4 L IS First Impressions & IQ/IR …




Thanks Ramon for spending time on it and share it here on CR.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 3, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> It isn't difficult or that time consuming to make your own with the free Adobe Lens Profile Creator.


I remember they had really detailed instructions about this when they first released it, but I never got around to trying it. Have you made some? If so, I'm guessing the results are pretty good given that it's a profile of your own lens+camera combination.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 3, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't difficult or that time consuming to make your own with the free Adobe Lens Profile Creator.
> ...



Does it need much adjustment? I thought this lens was nearly perfect


----------



## dpclicks (Jul 3, 2014)

Got My Copy yesterday evening. Planning to take some shots tonight and probably tomorrow early morning, Will post some sample shots.

Thanks
Darshan
www.facebook.com/DPClicks
www.flickr.com/dpbirds


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 3, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


For my commercial work - mostly building interiors - where I have used the 16-35 f/2.8 II and plan to use this lens, having perfectly straight lines is really important and having profiles saves a lot of time. The manual distortion tools work, but sometimes you end up driving yourself crazy trying to tweak the distortion, especially if there are numerous lines converging all over the place with patterned carpet, wallpapers, and such. And maybe I'm just a bit obsessive 

Also, no lens is perfect, but some are mighty good


----------



## emko (Jul 4, 2014)

wow is this so much sharper then the 24-105mm in the 24-35 range its crazy was the 24-105mm that bad or is this just that much better?


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 5, 2014)

dilbert said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...


I do own and use the TS-E 17 & 24, but sometimes the 16-35 f/2.8 worked better for certain shots when time was of the essence (i.e. secondary shots outside of the shot list) and I foresee the f/4 IS serving the same role. Most real estate work is done on a very tight schedule.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't difficult or that time consuming to make your own with the free Adobe Lens Profile Creator.
> ...



Sorry I am not getting some email notifications, not ignoring anybody!

I have made some, though I subsequently lost them on a HDD move but Adobe had come out with them by then anyway! I was thinking of making them for the 17TS-E when shifted but the lens is so good I haven't yet.

The results from the DIY seemed great, it always amazes me how much vignetting and "distortion" we have on even top flight lenses, so much so that I almost always leave vignetting on, 30+ years of looking at photos and they just don't look right without any vignetting


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 7, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Thanks for the update and I'm working my way through the threads, too... I know what you mean about the vignetting. In DxO, I frequently turn it off and on to see if I like the vignetting. For portraits and many other shots, I turn off the correction as I agree that it looks better.


----------



## infared (Jul 23, 2014)

In actual use...I am REALLY starting to like this lens..I can see I will be using it a whole lot more than the 16-35 f/2.8L II that I sold to buy it... 8)
The sharpness and the contrast are like the 24-70mm f/2.8l II. Very good for a zoom.


----------

