# Review: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS by Dustin Abbott



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 29, 2014)

```
<p>The extensive reviews of the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS continue to roll on. This time Dustin Abbot has posted his review of the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS.</p>
<p>This is another review that is quite glowing about the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS. It looks to be a good upgrade if you have an EF 17-40 f/4L and a great choice if you need a fill frame wide angle zoom don’t need the extra stop of light that the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II provides. I have yet to seriously shoot with the lens, but I hope to change that soon.</p>
<p><strong>From Dustin’s Conclusion

</strong><em>“This lens is good…really, really good. It is so competent that you have to stretch to find criticisms. What is even more true is that this lens is going to serve hundreds of thousands of photographers around the world very, very well.”</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://dustinabbott.net/2014/09/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4l-is-usm-review/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | </strong><strong>EF 16-35 f/4L IS: <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=6AVWEQKBYJ7TXPHU" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a 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 href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA16354.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Eldar (Sep 29, 2014)

Thanks for a great review. Again, I appreciate reading a photographer´s review. We find all the measurements elsewhere.

Your review is dead on my own experiences with this lens. I could have written your summary myself. I never liked the 16-35 f2.8L I or II and it stayed unused in my bag or on a shelf, whereas this lens has been in use quite a bit and Canon has received a number of orders based on my recommendation.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 29, 2014)

I hate review like this. It always push me to get one, even though I don't have a need for UWA yet.

Awesome as always Dustin


----------



## candyman (Sep 29, 2014)

Very nice review. If I would not already own the 16-35 f/4, your review would give me a lot of reason to buy this UWA lens instead of another. 
You made some excellent pictures 
Thanks


----------



## infared (Sep 29, 2014)

Great review as usual Dustin!

“This lens is good…really, really good. It is so competent that you have to stretch to find criticisms. What is even more true is that this lens is going to serve hundreds of thousands of photographers around the world very, very well.”

It is serving this photographer very, very well. I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II to buy it (even wash financially...the G.A.S attack was not messing with my bank account this time!! LOL! That NEVER happens).
I have to say..when I go out with this lens I KNOW that I will not be serving up any mush in Lightroom when I get home! :


----------



## brad-man (Sep 29, 2014)

Dustin's got it right again. "...this is the best wide angle zoom that Canon has ever produced." Damn right it is. Getting it from Canon Direct with a 20% discount was just icing on the cake


----------



## DominoDude (Sep 29, 2014)

Thanks for a well done review, Dustin!
I appreciate the effort and time put in to this.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 29, 2014)

Interesting review and as usual the image quality from Dustin's 6D is impeccable.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 29, 2014)

Thanks to everyone for the nice feedback. I have yet to see anyone that is really down on this lens. Not very controversial...just good.


----------



## fugu82 (Sep 29, 2014)

Terrific review, Dustin. Thanx so much for putting forth the time and effort to produce a review that can really be trusted. 
Another plus for this lens is that it plays very nicely with infrared, unlike the 2.8, which is horrible. I traded off my 2.8 for it primarily for that reason, but the f/4 is so good I've been using on my unconverted body all the time.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 30, 2014)

Yeah, it's a very good lens.


----------



## greenapol (Sep 30, 2014)

Would you recommend this lens for an aps-c body? I already pre-ordered a Canon 7D mark II body only, any recommended general purpose lens?


----------



## infared (Sep 30, 2014)

I replied earlier that I reall liked the review, but I did come across a statement that Dustin made that to my knowledge is at the very least an exaggeration:
"figure out now whereas before they were like a mystery. After being with a BPD, the simple games normal women play just don't work on me now. Get their attention, DENY them narcissistic supply and watch them chase you for it, if you look half decent and have the ability to put on a bit of an act it's easy"

If I am not mistaken the canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II was introduced at approximately $2499. I purchased mine not long after release for $2399. Right now B&H Photo is offering the lens at $2099 and do remember seeing it recently around the web perhaps in the $1800 range for very short periods of time...but I definitely have not seen that lens at half it's initial offering price which would be in the $1250 range. Correct? Maybe I missed some super sale or something but I do not think that the lens has sold that low. Maybe the initial selling price upon release was higher than I remember?

At any rate, the price on this new wide angle was a nice surprise compare to the Canon pricing trend beforehand! Definitely.

Also just checked out Dustin's video portion of the review and it was concise and excellent. Good speaking ability there!


----------



## nostrovia (Sep 30, 2014)

greenapol said:


> Would you recommend this lens for an aps-c body? I already pre-ordered a Canon 7D mark II body only, any recommended general purpose lens?



Yes, yes, and yes.

I use it on my 70D and love it. On an APS-C body, the venerable 17-40 performs quite well as the softer corners get lost by the crop factor, but the addition of IS on the 16-40 F/4 is fantastic.

Some samples on a crop:



Reflection Lake, Mount Rainier by Thomas Franta, on Flickr



White River, Mount Rainier NP by Thomas Franta, on Flickr

And it handles the sun so well!



Sunrise Point, Mt. Rainier by Thomas Franta, on Flickr


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 30, 2014)

greenapol said:


> Would you recommend this lens for an aps-c body? I already pre-ordered a Canon 7D mark II body only, any recommended general purpose lens?



Hi Greenapol,

the 16-35mm f4L IS in APS-C sensor is a terrific lens. I bought this lens after selling my equivalent 2.8L II lens. I had previously the 17-40 and the 10-22 and this one beats them all in terms of sharpness and IQ. It will be a very good 'general purpose' lens with equivalent focal lens of 25.6-56mm. No regrets


----------



## greenapol (Sep 30, 2014)

Thank you for all the replies! I will order it when i get my 7D body!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 30, 2014)

greenapol said:


> Would you recommend this lens for an aps-c body? I already pre-ordered a Canon 7D mark II body only, any recommended general purpose lens?



Maybe. It will probably be truly perfect to the corners on APS-C. The only thing is that the range is a bit restricted and there are some other options on APS-C that have more range, even more speed and also do pretty well, at least as well center frame, maybe just a trace worse in the far corners but not sure that is worth giving 50-55mm vs 35mm and f/2.8 vs. f/4. But anyway if you are OK with only going to 35mm, it should do super well.


----------



## Krob78 (Sep 30, 2014)

greenapol said:


> Thank you for all the replies! I will order it when i get my 7D body!


As well you should! ;D


----------



## Krob78 (Sep 30, 2014)

Excellent review Dustin, as always! 8)


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 30, 2014)

infared said:


> I replied earlier that I reall liked the review, but I did come across a statement that Dustin made that to my knowledge is at the very least an exaggeration:
> "figure out now whereas before they were like a mystery. After being with a BPD, the simple games normal women play just don't work on me now. Get their attention, DENY them narcissistic supply and watch them chase you for it, if you look half decent and have the ability to put on a bit of an act it's easy"
> 
> If I am not mistaken the canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II was introduced at approximately $2499. I purchased mine not long after release for $2399. Right now B&H Photo is offering the lens at $2099 and do remember seeing it recently around the web perhaps in the $1800 range for very short periods of time...but I definitely have not seen that lens at half it's initial offering price which would be in the $1250 range. Correct? Maybe I missed some super sale or something but I do not think that the lens has sold that low. Maybe the initial selling price upon release was higher than I remember?
> ...



Wow! I don't know where that quote came from, but it wasn't from my review! Wrong cut and paste?

P.S. I understand the confusion, but I wasn't referring to the 24-70 f/2.8 II, but the 24-70 f/4, which debuted at $1599 and has been as cheap as $800-$900 already.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 30, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I hate review like this. It always push me to get one, even though I don't have a need for UWA yet.
> 
> Awesome as always Dustin


I just have to copy that. (Dylan, thanks for letting me  )

I was out the last days in the forest with my 17-40 to get more used to UWA. If I was to... oh, my...
The only thing keeping me from going for this piece of glass is that I have other desires, too.


@Dustin:
Thank you for this really good and informative review. 
Just one  point of criticism:
"• _Not incredibly exciting?? _" Where did you get this idea:
A really sharp, fantastic UWA *with* IS, good looking Bokeh and star bursts and you call it "not exciting" (even with those question marks)
Not really?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Sep 30, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I hate review like this. It always push me to get one, even though I don't have a need for UWA yet.
> ...



I know, I know. Maybe it's just me, but the lenses that I most enjoy using tend to be primes or lenses with which I can produce something more dramatic and unique. Good zooms like a 24-70, 70-200, or this 16-35 are tools, but something like an old Helios 44-2 - that's for fun!!


----------



## hanifshootsphotos (Sep 30, 2014)

infared said:


> Also just checked out Dustin's video portion of the review and it was concise and excellent. Good speaking ability there!



...he has a Preacher's voice.


----------



## vic20 (Sep 30, 2014)

Thanks for the review . I went on trip in summer and would have liked to have a wider lens on my 70D.
I was not planning to buy another L lens for a while though , this is tempting ;D.

( I will likely go for non L wide lens 1st though)


----------



## nvsravank (Oct 1, 2014)

I have one question. I am serious as I don't know. Who needs f2.8 lens in a uwa lens?
what type of photography needs more open lenses?

I always thought uwa are for more landscape photography. I always thought that smaller apertures are better for landscape.

If the f4 lens is so good who would want the f2.8 lens.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 1, 2014)

nvsravank said:


> I have one question. I am serious as I don't know. Who needs f2.8 lens in a uwa lens?
> what type of photography needs more open lenses?
> 
> I always thought uwa are for more landscape photography. I always thought that smaller apertures are better for landscape.
> ...



Wedding photographers, for one. Or event shooters that need a faster aperture to help compensate for less than ideal lighting. People that shoot nightscapes. There's a surprising number of applications for a wider aperture even at wide angles. There's a reason why Canon makes a 24mm f/1.4...and why a number of people here are clamoring for Sigma to make a competitor.

But yes, landscape shooters are not ones who typically need a wider aperture.


----------

