# Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS Sample Images



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 17, 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/2014/05/canon-ef-16-35-f4l-is-sample-images/"></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/2014/05/canon-ef-16-35-f4l-is-sample-images/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>I’m not sure how I missed these, but <a href="http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/ef1635f4lis/sample.html" target="_blank">Canon China</a> has posted same images from the upcoming Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS. The images look good, and the corners look better than the EF 17-40 f/4L. However, we won’t know for sure how much better the lens is until we get some real world reviews. <a href="http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/ef1635f4lis/sample.html" target="_blank">View the sample images here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS $1199:</strong> <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> | <strong><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></strong> | <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA16354.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## FunPhotons (May 17, 2014)

I wonder if the geographic divisions are somewhat independent. Why would Canon China post pictures but nowhere else? They make seemingly random and uncoordinated marketing efforts much of the time (such as the U.S. EOS-M decisions)


----------



## candyman (May 17, 2014)

FunPhotons said:


> I wonder if the geographic divisions are somewhat independent. Why would Canon China post pictures but nowhere else? They make seemingly random and uncoordinated marketing efforts much of the time (such as the U.S. EOS-M decisions)




They published those photos a few days ago in the Netherlands by Canon. But, small size. Seems marketing wise not consistent.


----------



## stuDoc (May 17, 2014)

Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
-brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.


----------



## Jack56 (May 17, 2014)

stuDoc said:


> Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
> -brought to my attention by Bryan over at TDP.


Doesn't look very sharp in the corners (photo of the white house and the church). Or am I a pixel peeper now and does it look better than the 16-35 f/2.8 II?


----------



## PicaPica (May 17, 2014)

to be honest i don´t see a big improvement over my good 17-40mm copy.
don´t know where you see better corners...

but i hope for more examples.
canons image examples suck 90% of the time anyway.


----------



## rbr (May 17, 2014)

I can't tell much of anything really from any of those photos. None really have much corner detail. We also don't know where the focus points were for any of them. I look forward to trying my own. You can tell a lot very quickly by focusing up close and looking at grasses and dead leaves in the foreground corners.


----------



## mrsfotografie (May 17, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> stuDoc said:
> 
> 
> > Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
> ...



This new lens seems pointless to me - it's even longer than the f/2.8II and weighs almost the same. The 17-40 is the hands down winner for travel and portability in general. If I'm going to lug a WA that big, then it better have a 2.8 aperture.


----------



## Etienne (May 17, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> stuDoc said:
> 
> 
> > Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
> ...


The white house is 17mm f/8. Hard to say where the focus point was, but corners look sharp to me, some distant details may be a soft because the focus point may be close to the lens.

The church looks good, 16mm f/8, again don't know where the focus is, but should have lots of DOF. The shot is not razor sharp everywhere, but not bad. It is a 10 second exposure, so there could be some camera movement, you can't know how careful they were, or whether they used a good tripod.

Unfortunately, the only thing you can do is wait for reviews from good reliable sources.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 17, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> stuDoc said:
> 
> 
> > Just FYI, you can see a full-resolution jpeg of the samples by clicking on: (点击此处查看大图) located directly below each image.
> ...



Those are VERY complex angled scenes and who knows where they placed the focus (which matters a LOT for scenes like that).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 17, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Jack56 said:
> 
> 
> > stuDoc said:
> ...



Totally disagree. I could care less (grammar police, using this in the NEW accepted form so shhhhh ) about f/2.8 for this range. IS matter a lot more as does raw image quality.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 17, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Jack56 said:
> ...



Wouldn't it have just been faster to make it "couldn't" instead of going through the whole disclaimer?!


----------



## markko (May 17, 2014)

candyman said:


> They published those photos a few days ago in the Netherlands by Canon. But, small size. Seems marketing wise not consistent.



A link to the above mentioned Dutch page with a gallery on the right:

http://www.canon.nl/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Wide_zoom/EF_16-35mm_f4L_IS_USM/index.aspx


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (May 18, 2014)

Really hard to tell anything with the amount of jpeg compression on these photos


----------



## Springf (May 18, 2014)

well, unlike other manufacturers, Canon usually post the worst in the image samples...

so you have a bottomline to start with your expectation of this lens.


----------



## tgara (May 18, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Jack56 said:
> 
> 
> > stuDoc said:
> ...



I imported the stairs photo into Aperture and turned on the focus point overlay. Looks pretty good to me.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 18, 2014)

F/4 is fine for almost all users. I'm probably one of the few who actually use f/2.8 on a regular basis, just because of the lack of light in theaters. Now that I have my 24-70 MK II, I do not use wider very often.

I'd say this is one of the new family of Video optimized lenses with IS that Canon is developing. They see video as a big selling point, so we are going to see more video features. Who knows, if they get good enough for me to use, I might take up video again. I did do it on Super 8mm film in 1968 for a few years, then again in the lete 1980's and early 1990's on SVHS. Using the video editors with my Panasonic Industrial recorders was time consuming to a extreme. Programming the controllers, black-bursting tapes - YUK! 

I've also done it more recently using computers to edit, and even with my DSLR's, but I'm not happy with the results, and not willing to invest time and $$ into video, at least for now.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 18, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> F/4 is fine for almost all users. I'm probably one of the few who actually use f/2.8 on a regular basis, just because of the lack of light in theaters. Now that I have my 24-70 MK II, I do not use wider very often.
> 
> I'd say this is one of the new family of Video optimized lenses with IS that Canon is developing. They see video as a big selling point, so we are going to see more video features. Who knows, if they get good enough for me to use, I might take up video again. I did do it on Super 8mm film in 1968 for a few years, then again in the lete 1980's and early 1990's on SVHS. Using the video editors with my Panasonic Industrial recorders was time consuming to a extreme. Programming the controllers, black-bursting tapes - YUK!
> 
> I've also done it more recently using computers to edit, and even with my DSLR's, but I'm not happy with the results, and not willing to invest time and $$ into video, at least for now.



If you have a 5D3 install ML and then you'll be more than happy with the results (so long as you don't require 4k to be happy). The video quality on 5D3 for 1080p using ML RAW video is really pretty awesome.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 18, 2014)

tgara said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Jack56 said:
> ...



I don't know about that, with such a twisted scene, I'm not surprised some of the back parts go wonky with that close central focus.


----------



## FunPhotons (May 19, 2014)

This may have been covered by somebody, and of course we won't know until it's released, but based on the charts will this lens differ from the 16-35/2.8 above f/8 much at all?


----------



## Ruined (May 19, 2014)

FunPhotons said:


> This may have been covered by somebody, and of course we won't know until it's released, but based on the charts will this lens differ from the 16-35/2.8 above f/8 much at all?



If the MTF charts are representative of real world performance it should be sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8 at f/8


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 19, 2014)

FunPhotons said:


> This may have been covered by somebody, and of course we won't know until it's released, but based on the charts will this lens differ from the 16-35/2.8 above f/8 much at all?



If it matches the charts, then easily so.


----------



## AndreeOnline (May 19, 2014)

tgara said:


> I imported the stairs photo into Aperture and turned on the focus point overlay. Looks pretty good to me.



While it _might_ be an actual indication, it doesn't mean much.

I they use the central point for accuracy, and then recompose, it won't show you where they actually focused.


----------



## rahkshi007 (May 19, 2014)

The corner look sharp but not very impressive.. i still doubt it worth the upgrade unless those video guy need the " IS "


----------



## Etienne (May 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > F/4 is fine for almost all users. I'm probably one of the few who actually use f/2.8 on a regular basis, just because of the lack of light in theaters. Now that I have my 24-70 MK II, I do not use wider very often.
> ...



ML Raw video ... how many minutes of video do you get on a 32GB card?
And how onerous is the post processing?

thx


----------



## tron (May 19, 2014)

I sold my 16-35mm 2.8L (version 1) so I will think about it. I believe though that a 2.8 version III would be the best (if it is coma free) since I would like to use it for both landscape and Astrophotography ...


----------



## Dantana (May 19, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Jack56 said:
> ...



I think this just shows how different everyone's needs are. I think I fall in between the both of you. I don't really care about IS at this focal length. F4 is probably fine. The sharpness of the new lens is the selling point for me.

The negatives are that it's basically as big as the 16-35II, which is quite a bit bigger than the 17-40 when you are trying to fit everything in a backpack with your other hiking gear/photog gear/lenses. Also, while the price seems great compared to the 16-35II, it's quite a bit more than the 17-40. The 17-40 on the refurb store goes on special for $570ish quite often.

I think I will still end up buying this lens over the 17-40 if real world tests confirm the charts, but I will have to wait until the price drops/goes on sale/shows up in the Canon refurb store.


----------



## Jack56 (May 19, 2014)

When will there be reviews to read? First or second week of June?


----------



## sleepnever (May 19, 2014)

So, according to the Chinese site, those were taken at f/8. I want to see what it looks like at f/4 before I start comparing it to the 17-40.


----------



## brad-man (May 19, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> When will there be reviews to read? First or second week of June?



I pre-ordered one from Canon Direct (for a discounted promotional price of $1074 that I hope they'll honor) and the estimated shipping date is 6-27-14. So I would imagine there won't be any retail purchased lens reviews until the first week of July.


----------



## Jack56 (May 19, 2014)

Thanks. A pity, holiday starts second week of July.


----------



## MrPhotoEditor (May 19, 2014)

Pros
Minimal - and I mean it - CA (you can hardly spot them)
Excellent sharpness from center to corner
Very low barrel distortion for an ultrawide zoom lens
Simply unbelievable resistance to flare - reminded me the 24-70II (perhaps even better)
Very nice ergonomics - built quality - smooth focus/zoom rings
IS only a fraction louder than the one inside 24/28/35 IS USM
Beautiful bokeh!

Cons
Vignetting at f/4 at 24mm and especially at 35mm

Definitely a classic!!!

1st shot 16mm, f/11

2nd shot 16mm, f/8. 
The 2nd shot comes with details from bottom left and top right to help you evaluate how minimal the CA are... I haven't correct them..

3rd shot 16mm, f/5.6.


----------



## traingineer (May 19, 2014)

MrPhotoEditor said:


> Pros
> Minimal - and I mean it - CA (you can hardly spot them)
> Excellent sharpness from center to corner
> Very low barrel distortion for an ultrawide zoom lens
> ...



The 2nd and last shot are very nice.  But how did you get the lens so quickly?


----------



## MrPhotoEditor (May 19, 2014)

traingineer said:


> MrPhotoEditor said:
> 
> 
> > Pros
> ...



Just a humble technical editor - for the last 12+ years - reviewing stuff...!


----------



## traingineer (May 20, 2014)

MrPhotoEditor said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > MrPhotoEditor said:
> ...



Well then, does that mean you *(*maybe*)* have the 10-18mm up for a review? ;D


----------



## applecider (May 20, 2014)

Photo editor any shots at f4?


----------



## Dylan777 (May 20, 2014)

MrPhotoEditor said:


> Pros
> Minimal - and I mean it - CA (you can hardly spot them)
> Excellent sharpness from center to corner
> Very low barrel distortion for an ultrawide zoom lens
> ...



Music to my ears. Thanks for an early info MrPhotoEditor

Couple questions:
1. How is the AF? in term of accuracy and speed?
3. Do you find IS is helpful for UWA?

Thanks


----------



## AtSea (May 20, 2014)

If there's especially bad vignetting at F/4 @ 24/35mm then what's it like at 16mm? :-\


----------



## rrcphoto (May 20, 2014)

AtSea said:


> If there's especially bad vignetting at F/4 @ 24/35mm then what's it like at 16mm? :-\



are you putting words in people's mouths?


----------



## benperrin (May 20, 2014)

That last shot is really impressive. I think I really want this lens. Anyone want to buy a 17-40???


----------



## AtSea (May 20, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> AtSea said:
> 
> 
> > If there's especially bad vignetting at F/4 @ 24/35mm then what's it like at 16mm? :-\
> ...


PhotoEditor wrote:
"Cons
Vignetting at f/4 at 24mm and especially at 35mm"

Seems like you're just confused


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 20, 2014)

MrPhotoEditor said:


> Pros
> Minimal - and I mean it - CA (you can hardly spot them)
> Excellent sharpness from center to corner
> Very low barrel distortion for an ultrawide zoom lens
> ...



It's great to hear about the flare control, one point though...in my photos, the current 16-35IIL is far better in handling flare than the new 24-70 f2.8 II L. Especially when pointing directly at the sun to create a sun star (f16-f22), the 24-70 isn't that great in this regard but the older 16-35IIL is really good...so I'm hoping this new f4 version is a bit better.


----------



## mackguyver (May 20, 2014)

Can't wait to get this lens! The CA is what drives me nuts on the 16-35II and even with DxO and ACR, it still ends up messy if I push the shadows or drop the sky. It looks like we have about 5-6 weeks now...debating whether to sell my 16-35II now or wait to use it for comparisons...


----------



## MrPhotoEditor (May 20, 2014)

Well, first of all I apologize because I made a small error... Vignetting is obvious at maximum aperture only of 28mm (not 24mm) and a bit more at 35mm

For those asking about AF accuracy:
The lens show a tendency to back focusing a little, something you spot when focusing from 1-1.5 feet or less at maximum aperture. I made a microadjustment of -8 and everything is perfect!

Do I find the IS useful in a UWA lens?
Absolutely. On one hand you get huge advantage when you shoot still (or near-still) subjects. On the other hand don't forget that this lens target videographers as well. The IS is extremely smooth and you can only notice it (hear) when it's turning on or off, not while working.

In the following images you can see the vignetting - which I consider to be of less importance as it is easily fixed - from f/4 to f/8 at 16/24/28/35mm, and the great resolution achieved at the corners of the image (detail from 100% crop) at 16/24/35mm. It's worth mentioning that I haven't correct vignetting and CA, just some tonal values.

All in all it's a magnificent lens guys. Just placed it on top of my list!


----------



## candyman (May 20, 2014)

MrPhotoEditor said:


> Well, first of all I apologize because I made a small error... Vignetting is obvious at maximum aperture only of 28mm (not 24mm) and a bit more at 35mm
> 
> For those asking about AF accuracy:
> The lens show a tendency to back focusing a little, something you spot when focusing from 1-1.5 feet or less at maximum aperture. I made a microadjustment of -8 and everything is perfect!
> ...



Thank you so much for this information. Very, very useful. I already placed the order last week. Looking forward to get this lens and use it.


----------



## DigitalDivide (May 20, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> It looks like we have about 5-6 weeks now...debating whether to sell my 16-35II now or wait to use it for comparisons...



Me too, although in my case it would be the 17-40L I would be selling. From the data and samples so far available it seems like this lens will blow away my 17-40, so really it should be no contest. I've never been very happy with the 17-40, and I did consider the 16-35II as an upgrade. But I don't feel the need for f/2.8 at this FL, and the IQ is not enough of an improvement to tempt me even with the current rebates.

I had therefore been waiting patiently for the rumored 12/14-24 to be announced, but this new 16-35 f/4 is probably a better option for me. I quite often find myself trying to capture poorly lit interiors of historical buildings while on vacation, where the use of a tripod is generally prohibited. In a large building f/2.8 can limit the DOF too much even at 16mm, so I suspect that IS would be of more benefit to me than the extra stop. I don't find myself zooming all the way out to 17mm very often either, so 12 or 14mm might go unused while the greater range at the long end would be handy.

A quick check of completed listings on eBay shows that used 17-40s are still fetching around $600. That's actually not a whole lot less than I paid for my copy new a few years ago - Canon resale values are good enough that it can almost seem like putting down a deposit for a long term loan rather than actually purchasing them! ;D So essentially I would be paying $600 for a huge IQ upgrade, which is very attractive indeed. The only question in my mind is whether the new 16-35 will come down in price over the next few months, but since Canon has chosen to launch it at a much more reasonable price than some other recent lenses maybe the price drop will be less significant?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 20, 2014)

DigitalDivide said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > It looks like we have about 5-6 weeks now...debating whether to sell my 16-35II now or wait to use it for comparisons...
> ...



Everybody needs to emotionally justify their purchases....and lenses really do fall into that bracket. Just look how emotional Nikon or Canon forums get when a new camera gets launched!
But don't think that this lens will make you a better photographer...or that it will "blow the old one away". No it will be a little sharper wide open, it'll have slightly better flare resistance and slightly more contrast. It'll be new and shiny (unlike my very very beaten up 16-35IIL) which will really add to it's initial emotional feeling. There is little more this lens can do that the old one can't do, it's just a bit better in most respects. 
It's a little like the new 24-70IIL. An excellent lens to be sure and of someone hasn't already got a good copy of the mk1 then there is a real need to get one. But someone who's already got a very good copy of the mk1....then the side grade to a mk2 isn't so easy. What does it do for the extra outlay? it's a bit lighter and a bit sharper....hmmm....for some that's the ultimate priority. But for others who make money out of their kit, there's not so much of an obvious benefit.


----------



## mackguyver (May 20, 2014)

I agree with both of you and while I was actually hoping for a 12-24 f/4 (no IS) or 14-40 or something like that, the f/2.8 aperture (and IS) were the least of my concerns. I bought the 16-35II because of the marginally better IQ, but sort of like the 24-70 Mk I, I liked, but never loved the lens. Since buying the 24-70 II, I find myself using it far more than the old one and hope that this will be the same here. Little things like lighter weight, smaller hood size, and less CA go a long way for me, and I find the ergonomics of the 24-70 II are a big reason why I like it and use it so much more. Did I get lots of great photos with the Mk I? Yes. Did I love the lens? No. I hope that will repeat itself here with this lens. The sample shots look like a move in the right direction and I shoot a lot of stuff in bright contrasty light, so the lower CA will help me a ton. 

The lens won't make me or anyone else a better photographer, but if it improves the quality of my work, especially in large prints, than the loss from selling the 16-35II will be worthwhile. If I can sell two 20x30 prints, one 40x60 print, or just one more photo in a commissioned shoot, it will have paid for itself


----------



## rrcphoto (May 20, 2014)

AtSea said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > AtSea said:
> ...



no you are, he didn't say it was "especially bad" - just said it was a con.


----------



## DigitalDivide (May 20, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Everybody needs to emotionally justify their purchases....and lenses really do fall into that bracket. Just look how emotional Nikon or Canon forums get when a new camera gets launched!
> But don't think that this lens will make you a better photographer...or that it will "blow the old one away". No it will be a little sharper wide open, it'll have slightly better flare resistance and slightly more contrast. It'll be new and shiny (unlike my very very beaten up 16-35IIL) which will really add to it's initial emotional feeling. There is little more this lens can do that the old one can't do, it's just a bit better in most respects.
> It's a little like the new 24-70IIL. An excellent lens to be sure and of someone hasn't already got a good copy of the mk1 then there is a real need to get one. But someone who's already got a very good copy of the mk1....then the side grade to a mk2 isn't so easy. What does it do for the extra outlay? it's a bit lighter and a bit sharper....hmmm....for some that's the ultimate priority. But for others who make money out of their kit, there's not so much of an obvious benefit.



Yep, I'm with you on that, and I will admit to suffering from GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) from time to time! ;D It is tempting to think that all that is keeping one from being a better photog is the equipment. But as I've upgraded my lenses from consumer grade to enthusiast and then pro grade over the last few years, I've found that it is certainly not the case. In fact my experience with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II shows that it can actually be the opposite. Having taken thousands of shots over the years with a very mediocre 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 (bought sometime around 1992 I believe), I faced a definite learning curve with the 70-200, and it took me a while to figure out how to get the best out of it (or at least the best that I as an amateur am capable of).

Am I a better photographer because I have a shiny new lens? Of course not, but the f/2.8 has certainly made it possible for me to get some cool shots that were just not feasible with my crappy old lens, and the technical quality of my photos is markedly improved when I get the technique right. I also find that seeing how good the photos with a great lens can be when I get everything right encourages me to take more pictures and to try out new things. So in that sense new equipment can help me improve my technique, albeit not right away. (It is also difficult to blame my gear when things don't turn out as I'd like, since many great photogs are getting amazing results with the same equipment!  ). 

My expectations for the new 16-35 f/4 IS are similar. I'm looking forward to better contrast and less distortion in my photos, while the IS may improve my keeper rate in poor light and may allow me to take pictures in some situations where I simply couldn't before. The difference between my 17-40L and the new lens is not likely to be as dramatic as in the extreme comparison above, however.


----------



## Invertalon (May 20, 2014)

Vignetting at 16mm looks quite good... Much better than the 17-40, from what I can tell. This is good, as when I use the 17-40 for commercial work I generally work in low light situations and stop down only to reduce vingetting, not really increase sharpness. 

This lens is looking so good. I am glad I got my pre-order in very quickly at two different vendors (around 6:45am EST the morning they went up for preorder on B&H). Can't wait!

Plan to sell my 17-40 which is only a few weeks old after this weekend...


----------



## rrcphoto (May 20, 2014)

MrPhotoEditor said:


> Well, first of all I apologize because I made a small error... Vignetting is obvious at maximum aperture only of 28mm (not 24mm) and a bit more at 35mm
> 
> For those asking about AF accuracy:
> The lens show a tendency to back focusing a little, something you spot when focusing from 1-1.5 feet or less at maximum aperture. I made a microadjustment of -8 and everything is perfect!
> ...


the resolution in the corners, lack of CA and even distortion - this lens is a jaw dropper.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 20, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Everybody needs to emotionally justify their purchases....and lenses really do fall into that bracket.



I think you fail to realize that applies at least as much to those who stick with old equipment, they need to minimize any benefit from anything new. 



> It's a little like the new 24-70IIL. An excellent lens to be sure and of someone hasn't already got a good copy of the mk1 then there is a real need to get one. But someone who's already got a very good copy of the mk1....then the side grade to a mk2 isn't so easy. What does it do for the extra outlay? it's a bit lighter and a bit sharper....hmmm....for some that's the ultimate priority.



If you do landscape shooting it is more than side grade! It gives a much nicer 24mm f/8 on FF for finely detailed edge to edge landscape work. And it's not about justifying a purchase if you've had been begging for a zoom that could deliver top high density FF quality at the wide end. People were hoping and asking for that before they even made the purchase. 

It is actually quite a bit crisper at f/2.8 too. And it has a new focusing engine that allows it to focus much more precisely (when paired with a 5D3 or 1DX). It is also just about an APO lens so it doesn't get nasty purple fringing (purple/green front/back longitudinal CA).



> But for others who make money out of their kit, there's not so much of an obvious benefit.



Yeah that's a different game. If all the matter is raw money and ROI that is one thing, but for some it's not all about the money and whether I can get an extra dime out of something.


----------



## benperrin (May 21, 2014)

Thanks MrPhotoEditor for your help.


----------



## Hallucinate (May 21, 2014)

Why the first picture have so much blur? There should not be that much if it was F11 @16mm as you mentioned


MrPhotoEditor said:


> Pros
> Minimal - and I mean it - CA (you can hardly spot them)
> Excellent sharpness from center to corner
> Very low barrel distortion for an ultrawide zoom lens
> ...


----------



## deleteme (May 21, 2014)

This won't make me a better photographer but it will help me fill the gap between my 17 TS-E and the 24-105. 8)


----------



## MrPhotoEditor (May 21, 2014)

Hallucinate said:


> Why the first picture have so much blur? There should not be that much if it was F11 @16mm as you mentioned
> 
> 
> MrPhotoEditor said:
> ...



The depth of field in the first picture is really shallow because it was shot from a distance around 30-35cm. Even with a 16mm at f/11 you can still produce enough blur.


----------



## Sith Zombie (May 21, 2014)

A BIG BIG BIG thank you to Mr photo editor, for spending the time to put up these images and give us an early glimpse of this lens. Cheers Buddy!


----------



## mackguyver (May 21, 2014)

Sith Zombie said:


> A BIG BIG BIG thank you to Mr photo editor, for spending the time to put up these images and give us an early glimpse of this lens. Cheers Buddy!


Definitely! A thank you from me as well, and unlike some previous pre-orders that I cancelled - this one is going to stick


----------



## silversurfer96 (May 21, 2014)

I am thinking... wrapped in a box under the Christmas tree this year... I am not a professional, but this will complement my other two zoom lens. I love IS... too bad the 24-70 II IS is not yet.


----------



## Act444 (May 21, 2014)

Interesting, thanks for the samples. 

Just wish it was 2.8, that's all. Maybe that's coming later. The existing 16-35 2.8 I find to be just OK, plagued by super-soft corners even stopped down (seems like this phenomenon is worst at infinity focus). In fact, the quality drop-off from center to edges can be striking sometimes...

But...at least it gets to 2.8 for usability indoors. That's enough for me to keep it for now. Although...admittedly I'd sooner grab the 24-70 for events...


----------



## Dylan777 (May 21, 2014)

silversurfer96 said:


> I am thinking... wrapped in a box under the Christmas tree this year... I am not a professional, but this will complement my other two zoom lens. I love IS... too bad the 24-70 II IS is not yet.



Soon or later, it will come 8)


----------



## mackguyver (May 22, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> silversurfer96 said:
> 
> 
> > I am thinking... wrapped in a box under the Christmas tree this year... I am not a professional, but this will complement my other two zoom lens. I love IS... too bad the 24-70 II IS is not yet.
> ...


Don't you mean $$$ooner or later, it will come   ;D  :'( 8)


----------



## Dylan777 (May 22, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > silversurfer96 said:
> ...



I think you right, "sooner or later"..... ;D

In term of UWA, I'm standing btw the bridge of Canon DSLR and Sony a7r mirrorless. If I'm 100% commit to Canon DSLR, then, 1D X and 5D III combo is definitely on my purchase list. 

SOLD my 16-35 II and 50L last week, I have about $2800 on hand. If I sell A7r + Zeiss FE 55mm + one current 5D III, I think I have enough $$$ for brand new 1D X and new 16-35 f4 IS.

Of course, that is just an illogical plan in my shooting.....


----------



## mackguyver (May 22, 2014)

Dylan, that's an interesting plan and the 1D X is a beauty (and a perfect compliment to the 5DIII) if you decide to go that way. I need to sell my 16-35 II, too, but haven't had time to take photos of it yet...thankfully it's almost the weekend...

I'm really intrigued by the IS and the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. If I'm shooting at f/11-16 anyways, why not have another couple of stops to play with? Also, with UWA lenses, I find myself needing more freedom to explore different angles and shooting heights, and find tripods limiting in terms of finding the best composition. I have the very fortunate gift of being able to keep horizons and lines straight in the viewfinder, so maybe this lens and I will make great partners


----------



## Ruined (May 23, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan, that's an interesting plan and the 1D X is a beauty (and a perfect compliment to the 5DIII) if you decide to go that way. I need to sell my 16-35 II, too, but haven't had time to take photos of it yet...thankfully it's almost the weekend...
> 
> I'm really intrigued by the IS and the more I think about it, the more I like the idea. If I'm shooting at f/11-16 anyways, why not have another couple of stops to play with? Also, with UWA lenses, I find myself needing more freedom to explore different angles and shooting heights, and find tripods limiting in terms of finding the best composition. I have the very fortunate gift of being able to keep horizons and lines straight in the viewfinder, so maybe this lens and I will make great partners



Mack, given your outdoors focus this lens does appear to make more sense for you than the 16-35 II. I think the extra sharpness and smaller size will be more useful than f/2.8.

I am definitely holding onto my 16-35 II, however. I want a UWA for events and sometimes f/2.8 is even too slow, so an f/4 lens is basically out of the question. I have a 24L, but it does not do 16mm or have the flexibility of the 16-35. I am skeptical Canon can make a 16-35 f/2.8 that is massively better than the II without making the lens much larger or bulbous. Looking at other lenses available, I do not see any that exist that have better IQ at f/2.8 and a similar zoom range without much, much larger size and weight. Also, I personally have found IS much less effective at focal lengths such as 28-35mm.

This does give me a good idea for a survey, though


----------



## mackguyver (May 23, 2014)

Ruined said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan, that's an interesting plan and the 1D X is a beauty (and a perfect compliment to the 5DIII) if you decide to go that way. I need to sell my 16-35 II, too, but haven't had time to take photos of it yet...thankfully it's almost the weekend...
> ...


Ruined, I completely understand and used to use my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 a lot when I shot events, but my work has shifted away from that and stopping subject movement is less important to me these days. The 16-35 II is a great lens in many ways because it's a really nice range of focal lengths, takes filters, is f/2.8, and built like a tank. I was hoping for a 16-35 f/2.8 III with better corners and CA correction, or at least that in a similar zoom range and with f/2.8. That didn't happen, at least yet, so I took a step back to evaluate the shooting I actually do, versus what I have done and after thinking it through, this new lens seems like a good fit for me. I love fast lenses so I'm sure part of me will miss the f/2.8, but I think f/4 will work for me in 95% of the things I use the f/2.8 for these days.


----------



## Duff (May 24, 2014)

Hello guys, new member here (currently a Nikon DX user, flirting with Canon FF)

Anyone (esp. MrPhotoEditor) having any info how this lens performs in infrared? The 17-40 did an okay job but the 16-35f/2.8II had a bad hotspot which made it worthless for an infrared shooter like me.


----------



## Snodge (May 25, 2014)

Duff said:


> Hello guys, new member here (currently a Nikon DX user, flirting with Canon FF)
> 
> Anyone (esp. MrPhotoEditor) having any info how this lens performs in infrared? The 17-40 did an okay job but the 16-35f/2.8II had a bad hotspot which made it worthless for an infrared shooter like me.



I'd be interested to know this too, I've been using m42 lenses to get around this issue...


----------



## candyman (May 25, 2014)

Snodge said:


> Duff said:
> 
> 
> > Hello guys, new member here (currently a Nikon DX user, flirting with Canon FF)
> ...



Graham Clark Photography is planning to review the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS as soon as he will get his hands on it. I asked him to review on a few aspects and that includes the infrared. He confirmed that he will review the performance while using it with infrared. Now it is just a matter of time to wait for the review.


----------



## MrPhotoEditor (May 25, 2014)

Duff said:


> Hello guys, new member here (currently a Nikon DX user, flirting with Canon FF)
> 
> Anyone (esp. MrPhotoEditor) having any info how this lens performs in infrared? The 17-40 did an okay job but the 16-35f/2.8II had a bad hotspot which made it worthless for an infrared shooter like me.



sorry Duff, don't have a converted body to test it on (yet)...


----------



## ouuzi (May 31, 2014)

What about the sun stars ,are they in the same league as the 2.8?Mrphotoeditor?


----------



## MrPhotoEditor (Jun 5, 2014)

ouuzi said:


> What about the sun stars ,are they in the same league as the 2.8?Mrphotoeditor?



haven't compare them side by side, but I'm perfectly satisfied from what the f/4L gave me.


----------



## apacheebest (Jun 6, 2014)

Waiting for more sample images specially Landscapes and reviews, this is my next buy Lens if reviews are positive 

But this lens is still not listed in Australia, India and many countries yet  but available only in USA and China till now that too Preorder. how much more time Canon will take ?? Maybe months ?

Even a decent video is missing in You tube till now except this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4AgQICZ-JE

Anil George


----------



## Ruined (Jun 7, 2014)

ouuzi said:


> What about the sun stars ,are they in the same league as the 2.8?Mrphotoeditor?



Well, looking at the specs this lens will deliver an 18-point sunstar, similar to the 24-70 II.

The 16-35 II f/2.8 delivers a 14-point sunstar.

Personally, I like the look of a 14-point sunstar better than an 18-point sunstar; the 14-point just looks more natural/artistically pleasing to me and the best balance of # of rays/space in between rays. 18-point actually looks a bit cartoonish to me. But, this will likely boil down to personal preference.

Here is an example of 18-point sunstar: http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Spencer.jpg

And here is a 14-point sunstar: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YmWPW66rZ-o/UFsuV3tT9SI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/tMBjzehnwKg/s1600/IMG_2994_blog.jpg


----------



## EatingPie (Jun 12, 2014)

Ruined said:


> ouuzi said:
> 
> 
> > What about the sun stars ,are they in the same league as the 2.8?Mrphotoeditor?
> ...


You actually found something for me to _like_ about the 16-35 II f/2.8?? Darn you! My history with that lens and a 7D are all bad news, but both led to my 5DII, and lots and lots of fun and extremely satisfying photo sessions.

The MTF charts on this new lens look great. If it lives up to the lines, it'll outshine the its f/2.8 sibling (Amen to that!), and is very much on par with the highly regarded 24-70mm f/2.8L II.

-Pie


----------



## brad-man (Jun 13, 2014)

I have had this lens on preorder direct from Canon since the middle of may, scheduled to ship on 6-27-14. I just received a notice from them that started out with "We regret to inform you that here has been a change in the Estimated Ship Date" and expected a disappointment. To my complete surprise, the estimated ship date has been moved SOONER to 6-20-14. I just thought I'd throw that out there for those who are anticipating this lens as much as I am.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 13, 2014)

EatingPie said:


> The MTF charts on this new lens look great. If it lives up to the lines, it'll outshine the its f/2.8 sibling (Amen to that!), and is very much on par with the highly regarded 24-70mm f/2.8L II.
> 
> -Pie



It will outshine the f/2.8 II in sharpness, but for me it is still a non-starter due to the f/4 aperture. That aperture is great for landscapes but for events it is not fast enough. So for me despite the 16-35 f/2.8L II being less sharp, I am keeping it for the f/2.8 aperture.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 13, 2014)

brad-man said:


> I have had this lens on preorder direct from Canon since the middle of may, scheduled to ship on 6-27-14. I just received a notice from them that started out with "We regret to inform you that here has been a change in the Estimated Ship Date" and expected a disappointment. To my complete surprise, the estimated ship date has been moved SOONER to 6-20-14. I just thought I'd throw that out there for those who are anticipating this lens as much as I am.



I got the same notice. I was hoping to get the lens before a vacation starting on 6/21, but I won't get it if they ship on 6/20. Bummer!


----------



## brad-man (Jun 13, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > I have had this lens on preorder direct from Canon since the middle of may, scheduled to ship on 6-27-14. I just received a notice from them that started out with "We regret to inform you that here has been a change in the Estimated Ship Date" and expected a disappointment. To my complete surprise, the estimated ship date has been moved SOONER to 6-20-14. I just thought I'd throw that out there for those who are anticipating this lens as much as I am.
> ...



That does suck. Look at the bright side. We'll definitely have them by the fourth of July!


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Jun 19, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> F/4 is fine for almost all users. I'm probably one of the few who actually use f/2.8 on a regular basis, just because of the lack of light in theaters. Now that I have my 24-70 MK II, I do not use wider very often.
> 
> I'd say this is one of the new family of Video optimized lenses with IS that Canon is developing. They see video as a big selling point, so we are going to see more video features. Who knows, if they get good enough for me to use, I might take up video again. I did do it on Super 8mm film in 1968 for a few years, then again in the lete 1980's and early 1990's on SVHS. Using the video editors with my Panasonic Industrial recorders was time consuming to a extreme. Programming the controllers, black-bursting tapes - YUK!
> 
> I've also done it more recently using computers to edit, and even with my DSLR's, but I'm not happy with the results, and not willing to invest time and $$ into video, at least for now.



Just get a Sony RX100.


----------



## PhilA (Jun 21, 2014)

Very quick test done this morning with my old and well used 2.8L II, the 4L & TS-E 17f4L. 1DX body. All 100 ISO.

www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 21, 2014)

PhilA said:


> Very quick test done this morning with my old and well used 2.8L II, the 4L & TS-E 17f4L. 1DX body. All 100 ISO.
> 
> www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg



certainly looks very promising!


----------



## canonic (Jun 21, 2014)

PhilA said:


> Very quick test done this morning with my old and well used 2.8L II, the 4L & TS-E 17f4L. 1DX body. All 100 ISO.
> 
> www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg



Many thanks! Looks very good especially in the corners!


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

Holy cow  
I just got mine.  Received a phonecall and could pick it up today.
Just did some testphotos at f/4, f/5.6, f/8 and f/11
What resolution and dpi in jpeg do you want me to upload them?
(going to pp in the new DPP 4.0)


----------



## Khalai (Jun 21, 2014)

candyman said:


> Holy cow
> I just got mine.  Received a phonecall and could pick it up today.
> Just did some testphotos at f/4, f/5.6, f/8 and f/11
> What resolution and dpi in jpeg do you want me to upload them?
> (going to pp in the new DPP 4.0)



Fullres pretty please, data is cheap


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

Khalai said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > Holy cow
> ...




I think there is a limit of 6MB upload here - so I have to resize to this limit.... :-\


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 21, 2014)

candyman said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > candyman said:
> ...



Resolution and file size are different things. Resolution, as we use it, just means pixel numbers, file size means how much compression is applied to the output. You can easily have a 1200 pixel image that is larger than a full resolution one.


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

First one with 6D at 16mm f/4


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

And 16mm at F/8


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

And at 16mm f/11


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

BTW: all photos hand-held with IS (no mono/tripod) and no AFMA yet.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 21, 2014)

candyman said:


> And at 16mm f/11



congrats candyman 

Keep posting...


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > And at 16mm f/11
> ...




Thanks
Here at 35mm F/4


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

at 35mm f/8


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

and at 20mm f/8


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

another one at 16mm f/8


----------



## Ruined (Jun 21, 2014)

The sharpness and contrast is really nice on this lens... Too bad there is not an f/2.8 version, because I need that more than sharpness.

And, while tempting, I can't justify having two zooms exactly the same range. Oh well... Hopefully Canon will come out with a 12-24 or something, that I could justify.

For landscape folks, it doesn't get much better than this!


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

at 16mm f/5.6


----------



## tayassu (Jun 21, 2014)

That looks very promising. This lens, a 50mm (I'm thinking Sigma) and a 70-300 would make a perfect travel kit on a FF camera. :


----------



## candyman (Jun 21, 2014)

tayassu said:


> That looks very promising. This lens, a 50mm (I'm thinking Sigma) and a 70-300 would make a perfect travel kit on a FF camera. :




My thoughts exactly. The 16-35 on my 6D, the 70-300 on my 5D and the 50 to swap when needed - or the 35mm


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 21, 2014)

candyman said:


> at 16mm f/5.6



Have you done any distortion compensation, or is that straight from the camera?


----------



## candyman (Jun 22, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > at 16mm f/5.6
> ...


Yes I did, but minor


Below is straight from the camera. Only slight sharpening after resize. No profile settings applied.


----------



## apacheebest (Jun 23, 2014)

Thanks for all those wonderful pics 

Anil George


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 23, 2014)

A worthy replacement of the 17-40L.


----------



## candyman (Jun 23, 2014)

apacheebest said:


> Thanks for all those wonderful pics
> 
> Anil George


 
You're welcome.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jun 25, 2014)

Got mine today from B&H. What a beautiful lens!

Ran through FoCal 1.9.7 tonight:
AFMA: +1 at 16mm; 0 at 35mm
AF Consistency (on 5DIII): 99.7%
Aperture Sharpness: Relatively flat from f4 to f6.3 at 16mm; sharpest at f4.5 at 35mm
Quality of Focus values are lower at 35mm (max around 1,920) than at 16mm (max around 1,970).
Testing condition: 2x 150W bulbs; EV 10.6; tested at both 25x and 50x distance.

Real world shooting experience: super fast AF; IS operation is extremely fast.

I love this lens. Will take it to a trip in Oregon in August.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 25, 2014)

I had accidentally cancelled my very early pre-order and decided to wait for the reviews but you guys have convinced me to go for it. I had sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II as well, so I'm missing the UWA as well. Hopefully B&H will ship it out tomorrow.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 25, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> Got mine today from B&H. What a beautiful lens!
> 
> Ran through FoCal 1.9.7 tonight:
> AFMA: +1 at 16mm; 0 at 35mm
> ...



If you are testing with tunsten bulbs and not natural daylight, you are limiting your testing to a shallow portion of the light spectrum. As the colour of light moved to the red end of the scale, there can be a focus shift and more inaccuracys. All you are testing there is the camera / lens focus ability under those lighting conditions. 
I'm often correcting photographers who are calibrating their lenses at night (becuase that's when they have the spare time) when they should be calibrating them out doors in good light during the daytime.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jun 25, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Phenix205 said:
> 
> 
> > Got mine today from B&H. What a beautiful lens!
> ...



It might be true. In my personal experience, however, all my lenses were calibrated at night and I have not noticed any focus shifting during daylight shooting conditions. To me consistent lighting is more critical while using software for calibration.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jun 26, 2014)

Bryan at The-digital-picture.com has just published the image quality testing results. I've seen the same for my own test. This will be a great travel landscape lens.

This lens is a little soft wide open at 35mm. I've noticed that in my real world shooting. Pretty sharp across the frame at shorter (wider) focal lengths.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 28, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> Bryan at The-digital-picture.com has just published the image quality testing results. I've seen the same for my own test. This will be a great travel landscape lens.
> 
> This lens is a little soft wide open at 35mm. I've noticed that in my real world shooting. Pretty sharp across the frame at shorter (wider) focal lengths.



I'm glad you confirmed that. I don't recall shooting 35mm on my 16-35 f2.8 II. Most of my landscape photos were 16mm - 22mm. 

Therefore, I'm dreaming of 20mm f2.8 pancake style(just like the 40mm pancake).


----------



## markko (Jun 29, 2014)

Yesterday I went out with four wide-angles:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 IS
[*]Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II
[*]Canon EF 17-40mm f/4
[*]Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II
[/list]

For people that like to see pictures of walls: I took a few shots with each lens at the same piece of wall. The RAW files of these pictures and some additional pictures can be found in this ZIP file (contains 54 RAW files; 1.7GB large):

http://markkoenen.nl/downloads/2014-06-28-4-wide-angles-RAWs.zip

You can judge on the image quality yourself. Handling of the lens is as you would expect for this type of L-lens except for one thing: in case the image stabilization is turned on, the lens makes a weird noise occasionally. Not while you're focussing, but especially during moments that you point the camera at something else.

I thought this was an error in the specific lens that I got, so I went back to the shop and tried another copy of the 16-35mm f/4 and it had the exact same noise. It annoyed me this much that I turned off the stabilization 

Cheers,

Mark.

The four lenses:






The wall:





One of the other random pictures:


----------



## Phenix205 (Jun 30, 2014)

Nice work Mark. Alex Nail has some comparison of center and corner sharpness between this lens and 16-35II, 17-40, and 17TSE. The sharpness of the 16-35 IS is on par with 17TSE. Good to know.
http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/review-canon-16-35-f4l-is-vs-16-35-f2-8l-ii/


----------



## Ruined (Jun 30, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> Nice work Mark. Alex Nail has some comparison of center and corner sharpness between this lens and 16-35II, 17-40, and 17TSE. The sharpness of the 16-35 IS is on par with 17TSE. Good to know.
> http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/review-canon-16-35-f4l-is-vs-16-35-f2-8l-ii/



The extra sharpness from f/4-f/8 is great on the f/4 IS. At f/11, it looks like a draw between everything except the 17-40 - I see no significant improvement in the 16-35 f/4 IS over the 16-35 f/2.8L II at f/11. The writer only very briefly mentions one of the significant advantages f/2.8 can give you in a number of scenarios, such as increased light, lower ISOs, higher shutter speeds, and thinner DOF. I also disagree that the flare is any better on the 16-35 f/4 IS than the 16-35 II, it looks about a draw.

And, I do think the 16-35 II's sunstar is quite a bit superior, despite this blogger's opinion; the best way I can describe it, the 16-35 f/4 IS sunstar looks like a picture of the sun, while the 16-35 II sunstar looks like the sun as I see it in real life. If I am taking a landscape picture, I want majestic and realistic looking sun rays. I would go as far as to say I would find it difficult to upgrade to the 16-35 f/2.8L III if it has sun rays similar to the 16-35 f/4L IS.

For strict landscape shooters if you have not purchased a UWA yet, the f/4 IS looks like it will probably be your best bet to allow you great sharpness from f/4+, and similarly a much needed upgrade if you have a 17-40L. If you already have a f/2.8L II, it is a muddy proposition. You give up f/2.8 and the 16-35 II's unique sunstars for a sharpness increase that is only readily apparent from f/4-f/8, with differences becoming minor at f/8. And, if you are an event shooter or do both events and landscape, I'd definitely recommend the f/2.8L II over the f/4 IS for the much needed f/2.8 and similar quality at f/11.

Thinking about that for a second, if you are an event shooter, the majority of your shots will be at f/2.8 for increased light. On the other hand, if you are a landscape shooter, f/11 is extremely popular as it is the narrowest aperture/greatest DOF that does not suffer the greater sharpness losses of smaller apertures due to diffraction. So, arguably, the place where the f/4 IS shows the biggest sharpness difference is the middle of the aperture range (i.e. f/4-f/5.6) that will be used but are probably not the bread and butter for either event or landscape shooters. While it is sharper in those middle apertures, is it worth losing f/2.8 and those awesome 16-35 II sunstars for that? Some may think so, but others may not. But, it is worth pondering before you go through the cost and hassle of swapping lenses (and potentially filter sets).


----------



## Phenix205 (Jun 30, 2014)

To me, IS is a great feature that a larger aperture cannot provide. Imagine shooting a moving train in a metro station like the one in Washington DC. You want the train to be blurry while keeping the unique architecture sharp. F2.8 is not gonna help. You need that fantastic IS. I had a 16-35 I, and seldom shot at 2.8. For low light shooting 2.8 is just not fast enough.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 30, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> To me, IS is a great feature that a larger aperture cannot provide. Imagine shooting a moving train in a metro station like the one in Washington DC. You want the train to be blurry while keeping the unique architecture sharp. F2.8 is not gonna help. You need that fantastic IS. I had a 16-35 I, and seldom shot at 2.8. For low light shooting 2.8 is just not fast enough.



If you are going to slow down that much (i.e. 1/4 second or slower), IS does not help much either in real world use on these wider focal lengths. It will be somewhat better, but will still greatly pale in comparison to a tripod. I have done lots of tests with IS at very slow shutter speeds on the 24 IS, 28 IS, and 35 IS and it far less effective than say IS on the 70-200. Instead of the advertised 4 stops which actually is the case with the 70-200, on the 24 IS it is more like 2 at best, and it looks significantly inferior to tripod work.

Keeping with your train example, what if there was a railroad sign in the foreground you wanted to focus on, and blur the train in the background using *both* motion blur *and* DOF/bokeh? Here, you could set up a long exposure with the 16-35 II f/2.8L at f/2.8 with a 10-stop ND filter on a tripod and get an effect that would be impossible to emulate to the same extent on the 16-35 f/4 IS.

The main use of f/2.8 is for low light shots of moving subjects, but there are other creative uses for it as well.


----------



## kobeson (Jun 30, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> To me, IS is a great feature that a larger aperture cannot provide. Imagine shooting a moving train in a metro station like the one in Washington DC. You want the train to be blurry while keeping the unique architecture sharp. F2.8 is not gonna help. You need that fantastic IS. I had a 16-35 I, and seldom shot at 2.8. For low light shooting 2.8 is just not fast enough.



A tripod can do the same thing. However - a tripod cannot get you an extra stop of light.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 30, 2014)

kobeson said:


> Phenix205 said:
> 
> 
> > To me, IS is a great feature that a larger aperture cannot provide. Imagine shooting a moving train in a metro station like the one in Washington DC. You want the train to be blurry while keeping the unique architecture sharp. F2.8 is not gonna help. You need that fantastic IS. I had a 16-35 I, and seldom shot at 2.8. For low light shooting 2.8 is just not fast enough.
> ...



Yes, a tripod will do the same thing when you can use it or want to carry it. The big advantage of the f2.8L II is the ability to stop action under dimmed light (weddings, events, etc) that can not be achieved with the f4L IS.
If you have static objects 4-stop IS will help you a lot more than 1-stop of aperture, this is a better travel lens.
I am waiting for my new 16-35mm f4L IS lens to be delivered tomorrow (I already sold the f2.8L II), then I will post some pictures.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 30, 2014)

We, as photographers, need to stop thinking and talking IS vs tripods, they are different tools with different applications and both are very useful for some people, whilst being totally inappropriate for others users.

Some will argue against IS in wide and ultrawide lenses "because there is no need" well I have a need, if you don't then fine, just like 45 or 61 point AF, some have a need for it, some are happy with one (a lot of Hasselblad owners).

Tripods are banned in ever more places, take the example given above of a mass transit system, well 90% of them have banned tripod use so your tripod isn't going to cut it unless you get written permission and they say yes, you have liability insurance and everything else such permissions insist on. I carried a tripod around India last year, I took about five shots with it, its use was banned and enforced everywhere you might want to use a tripod. Some peoples style doesn't fit in with using or carrying tripods, IS can be a valuable tool at any focal length for these photographers.

On the other hand IS will never replace a landscapers tripod where exposures over 2 seconds are common, as well as multiple exposures and multiple filter use.

Just like video, if IS is a feature you will never use then just don't turn it on, the cost is offset by the increased appeal and sales of the lens and it weighs a just few grams.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 30, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> kobeson said:
> 
> 
> > Phenix205 said:
> ...



The f/4 IS does look to be a superlative travel or landscape lens due to its sharpness at f/4 and above. But, as an "all around" professional lens, the 16-35 f/2.8L II simply offers better adaptability for any situation and still delivers excellent IQ, though for sharpness you need to stop down to f/11 if you want to match the 16-35 f/4 IS. However, if you are doing landscapes this is generally not too much of an issue as f/11 is the sweet spot for sharpness/DOF - but the increased sharpness of f/4-f/8 on the f/4 IS does give you significant extra flexibility as a landscape photographer for f/4-f/5.6, for instance.

The main issue with losing f/2.8 is that unlike IS it cannot be emulated in several ways:
1) High shutter speeds - for moving subjects the shutter needs to be at bare minimum 1/60 for very slow subjects (i.e. slow walking) and 1/100 for anything faster than that. With an f/4 lens in dim light you will either need to double your ISO to match what f/2.8 could do, otherwise you will get reduced shutter speed that will result in motion blur; recall that f/4 lets in half the light of f/2.8. And, given the dim environments of many events, f/2.8 will often require ISO 3200-6400 - thus f/4 can push ISOs into five digits that will greatly damage picture quality across the whole frame, eons more picture quality loss than you'd gain in corner sharpness.
2) Depth of field - while it is true 16mm offers tons of DOF, the ability to throw the background out of focus is still there with close subjects and distant backgrouns - even moreso with 35mm. Remember, this is a 16-35mm lens, not a 16mm prime. Thus, with a lens that can only do f/4 it means you will have less subject isolation ability, especially when taking candids at 35mm for example.

IS does buy you the ability to use 1- or 2- stops slower shutter speed than reciprocal focal length without, but note that a tripod can emulate this on a non-IS lens. Also note that with a 16-35 the shutter speed already can go as low as 1/15 on the wide end or 1/30 on the tele end with decent technique due to the wide angle - already very slow without IS. Finally, for some reason (I don't know the science) Canon's IS is less effective on wide angle lenses like the 16-35mm than tele lenses like the 70-200; while the latter meets the advertised 4-stops of IS, the former in practice only delivers 1- or 2- stops before the image starts to lose significant sharpness. In my experience, at 1/8 or slower you will get much better sharpness using a tripod than IS. A tripod is not always available, but it is worth considering how often 1/8 or slower shutter speed is required w/ IS and no tripod is available - versus how often you need to retain a high shutter speed in dim light to stop motion blur through f/2.8 aperture.

In any case, I don't want this to appear as if the f/4 IS is a bad lens. It is not, it is a spectacular lens. But it is not a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8L II as some are stating, the f/4 IS is simply aimed at a different market (strict landscapers/travel) - if you are going to be photographing moving subjects in potentially dim light at any point or simply want the flexibility to do so, you definitely would want to get the 16-35 f/2.8L II. And, while the 16-35 f/2.8L II does not have the corner sharpness of the f/4 IS for landscape from f/4-f/8 (though f/8 is close), by stopping down to f/11 the 16-35 f/2.8L II is comparable.

The lens to select depends on your needs, as usual.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jun 30, 2014)

In the end, I think we all agree to disagreements. We choose the lens that suits our shooting needs the most. But objectively, the new 16-35 4L IS is a sharper lens, has IS, and sells for lower price. To me it is a true winner. See Bryan’s comparison here. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx


----------



## Ruined (Jun 30, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> In the end, I think we all agree to disagreements. We choose the lens that suits our shooting needs the most. But objectively, the new 16-35 4L IS is a sharper lens, has IS, and sells for lower price.



Objectively it also is unable to do f/2.8 at all, which is the whole point and quite significant, as well as the fact that at f/11 the sharpness is similar to the 16-35 f/2.8L II - the importance/usefulness of this should not be ignored when advising on which lens to pick


----------



## AtSea (Jul 1, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Phenix205 said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, I think we all agree to disagreements. We choose the lens that suits our shooting needs the most. But objectively, the new 16-35 4L IS is a sharper lens, has IS, and sells for lower price.
> ...



Yeah, and you've been sure to state this across 3 different threads now. We know, 4.0 is not the same as 2.8. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=410385;topic=21594.0;last_msg=410473
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21530.msg410346#msg410346

Guess what, though? That 2.8 aperture isn't a 1.4! Good luck freezing action as well as a prime lens.

People have different needs. I'd argue that for most people, it doesn't matter. This lens has a million different purposes, and the difference between 2.8 and 4.0 is a deal breaker for very few of them.


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 1, 2014)

AtSea said:


> Guess what, though? That 2.8 aperture isn't a 1.4! Good luck freezing action as well as a prime lens.



Exactly my thinking for not waiting on a unicorn and pulling the wallet out right now.

Most of the gearsheads around here probably have a 1.4 in that focal range in their kit. I did very well with my 35 art when i needed to. 2.8 is nice but is it worth the 1k USD to my particular shooting? Probably not. Your results may differ.


----------



## dolina (Jul 1, 2014)

I think if your purpose is to do group shots and hand held landscape this is the lens to get. I'd only consider a f/2.8 if I was doing action shots.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 1, 2014)

AtSea said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Phenix205 said:
> ...



True, but no one makes a 16mm f1.4 lens yet. 24mm isn't THAT wide compared to a 16mm. 
Another issue with an image stabiliser is that it takes a few seconds to settle. If you just point and snap, there a possibility that the gyros and elements haven't settled and you get soft images. I used to get this a lot with my 70-200 f4 LIS until I switched off the IS most of the time or I allowed the IS unit to settle under half pressure on the shutter release.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 1, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Another issue with an image stabiliser is that it takes a few seconds to settle. If you just point and snap, there a possibility that the gyros and elements haven't settled and you get soft images.



This is really scraping the barrel when it comes to points against IS ! . Only switch it on when you need it ! 

Personally I'm all for IS in standard / wide angle focal lengths. I have absolutely no desire to carry a tripod to some of the places I go, and inevitably I end up shooting landscapes in low, fading ( or ascending ) light. I'm still old fashioned enough to not want to wack ASA up, so IS often enables me to get the shot with suitable dof and no ( at least damaging) shake. 

However I'm fully aware that a shot taken in this way will not be as critically sharp as one from a solid platform.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 1, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Another issue with an image stabiliser is that it takes a few seconds to settle. If you just point and snap, there a possibility that the gyros and elements haven't settled and you get soft images.



If you had tried the IS on this lens and 70-200 II, you probably would not have made this statement. The IS is almost instantaneous on the 16-35 4L.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 1, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Another issue with an image stabiliser is that it takes a few seconds to settle. If you just point and snap, there a possibility that the gyros and elements haven't settled and you get soft images.
> ...



I have both 70-200 lenses and use them professionally...and there is still a slight delay.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 2, 2014)

Some quick casual shots for testing while taking the kids for a walk yesterday evening. All handheld. I am very happy with the corner and edge sharpness this lens produces. IS worked very nicely for the last shot (1/8 sec).


----------



## dpclicks (Jul 4, 2014)

Hello Friends,

May be I am missing something but, I just got my Canon 16-35 f/4. I shot some images, and when import them in Lightroom, somehow Lightroom doesn't get full image, it cuts from both sides.

Is there any setting that I am missing? Sorry for my newbie question.

Thanks
Darshan


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 4, 2014)

dpclicks said:


> Hello Friends,
> 
> May be I am missing something but, I just got my Canon 16-35 f/4. I shot some images, and when import them in Lightroom, somehow Lightroom doesn't get full image, it cuts from both sides.
> 
> ...


Hi Darshan, is it possible you put your hood on 90 degrees off from the way it's supposed to go? If you do that, you get black on the sides.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 6, 2014)

Ruined said:


> IS does buy you the ability to use 1- or 2- stops slower shutter speed than reciprocal focal length without, but note that a tripod can emulate this on a non-IS lens. Also note that with a 16-35 the shutter speed already can go as low as 1/15 on the wide end or 1/30 on the tele end with decent technique due to the wide angle - already very slow without IS. Finally, for some reason (I don't know the science) Canon's IS is less effective on wide angle lenses like the 16-35mm than tele lenses like the 70-200; while the latter meets the advertised 4-stops of IS, the former in practice only delivers 1- or 2- stops before the image starts to lose significant sharpness. In my experience, at 1/8 or slower you will get much better sharpness using a tripod than IS. A tripod is not always available, but it is worth considering how often 1/8 or slower shutter speed is required w/ IS and no tripod is available - versus how often you need to retain a high shutter speed in dim light to stop motion blur through f/2.8 aperture.



Yeah I have to say that I'm struggling to get as much help from the IS from this 16-35 IS lens as many claim to be. It seems that when I am both very careful and lucky I can get low enough that the IS struggles to help much more since it's not as effective at low speeds. I'm truly giving my best shots to non-IS tries and then when I turn on IS I'm just not seeming to get more than about 2/3rds of a stop at 16mm and 1 stop higher up the range. I just can't seem to do it. I don't know how some are claiming they are getting 2 stops or even more crazily 3 stops with ease. Are they truly giving a best effort to their without IS attempts? Or subtly dogging it on those quick without IS trials without even realizing it? Some peculiarity about how I shake when I shake? Maybe I need to test it in a more typical run around mode when arms and legs are tired and I'm more running and gunning and not being so careful or when there is wind around, etc.

With 70-300L I seem to get 1 stop easily out of the IS and I can manage 2 stops even.

The one where I can do really well with IS, OUT of the macro range, is the 100L, where I think I can sometimes get almost 3 stops out of it, more than with any other IS lens, maybe because it has that ultra fancy IS unit in it. At 1:1 it's much less, but it can still be just enough to let you get one totally crisp shot out of a burst, of course macro is often shot so stopped down you still need very good light even then, but still, it is a bonus since you can get some good light natural light shots that would've just required you to move higher in ISO than you want for macro.

In any case, I don't want this to appear as if the f/4 IS is a bad lens. It is not, it is a spectacular lens. But it is not a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8L II as some are stating, the f/4 IS is simply aimed at a different market (strict landscapers/travel) - if you are going to be photographing moving subjects in potentially dim light at any point or simply want the flexibility to do so, you definitely would want to get the 16-35 f/2.8L II. And, while the 16-35 f/2.8L II does not have the corner sharpness of the f/4 IS for landscape from f/4-f/8 (though f/8 is close), by stopping down to f/11 the 16-35 f/2.8L II is comparable.

The lens to select depends on your needs, as usual.
[/quote]


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 6, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Phenix205 said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, I think we all agree to disagreements. We choose the lens that suits our shooting needs the most. But objectively, the new 16-35 4L IS is a sharper lens, has IS, and sells for lower price.
> ...



As you say it depends what you shoot and how. I bet that a LOT more people could make use of even just nearing 1 stop IS and much better CA control (especially longitudinal) and overall somewhat sharper, especially on the wider end at this UWA to WA range than need f/2.8 there. Of course some like yourself prefer the f/2.8 over all of that, but I bet for an UWA zoom, rather more make out better with the new lens. Plus the new lens is like roughly $500 or so less too.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 6, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Phenix205 said:
> ...



I don't disagree with any of what you are saying. Most people probably will benefit from the improvements of the new 16-35 f/4 IS, as this lens focal length probably racks up the most sales for landscape or non-demanding "general use." The increased corner sharpness and lower price will help these two groups respectively.

On the other hand, most professionals who sell their services for cash in places they have little control of the ambience will likely benefit more from (or outright require) f/2.8. But, that group is probably a smaller percentage of the lens-buying population. If someone is paying you to do something, you don't want to be in a situation where the shot desired is not doable because your lens is not wide enough or not fast enough. Also, those who are more into shooting people indoors, even casually, will benefit more from f/2.8; a shot with obvious motion blur, high ISO noise levels, or compromised framing due to lack of a wide enough angle - all are much worse than decreased corner sharpness. Recall, f/2.8 lets in twice as much light; in many cases where you don't have the option to drop shutter speed due to motion, that extra light will actually add to increased resolution as you can use lower ISO and in turn lower (or no) resolution-reducing DNR.

Which all goes back to - the new 16-35 f/4 IS is awesome and a much needed upgrade for the 17-40 f/4, but it is most definitely not a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8 II as some are proclaiming.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 8, 2014)

Ruined said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



You are quite right, it's a replacement fro the 17-40 f4 L not the 16-35 f2.8 II L. Which leads many of us to think that the rumoured f2.8 replacement will cover a very different range. A 12-24mm f2.8 for example would be fun. But ultimatly, if one needs the extra stop of light and the 1 stop slower shutter speed offered by the new f4 IS version can't be made to work with the IS unit, then the f2.8 is still the best option in that situation....which I why I haven't swapped out mine. 
While a 12-24mm f2.8 would be fun, for group shots, I would prefer the 16-35mm range. 
I use my 16-35 f2.8 II L along side a 35L and 85IIL on three cams for my wedding work. If I chose the new f4 version, there is a huge difference in light gathering between my ultra wide and my primes. it's a bit too much for my needs, but this new f4 lens is a fantastic piece of kit and I'm sure Canon will sell bucket loads. For 80% of the full frame photographic community, this is the right lens for them.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 9, 2014)

The lens is a hiker's dream lens. I could imagine a great lightweight landscape kit composed of 6D, 16-35 f/4L IS, and one or two other lenses depending on shooting style - 70-200 f/4L IS, or 85mm f/1.8 +/- 50 f/1.8 II.


----------

