# EF 16-35 F/4L IS corner samples & comparison



## ahsanford (Jun 22, 2014)

From Phil Aynsley at www.philaphoto.com, we have some corner comparisons of the new EF 16-35 F/4L IS against the EF 16-35 F/2.8L II and the TS-E 17mm F/4L:

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

Hardly a comprehensive look, but it's clearly showing some corner improvement over prior lenses.

- A


----------



## SoullessPolack (Jun 22, 2014)

Time to sell the TS-E 17. Better sharpness, better handling and operation, ability to use filters, and cheaper. Yes please!


----------



## drjlo (Jun 22, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Time to sell the TS-E 17. Better sharpness, better handling and operation, ability to use filters, and cheaper. Yes please!



Umm, 16-35 f/4 can "Tilt-Shift"?


----------



## Roger Jones (Jun 22, 2014)

the corner samples on the 2.8 look wrong. Seems to have motion blur like a lower shutter sped was used. I don't think the 2.8 used is a representative example of that lens. Mine is not *that* soft in the corners. If I were buying now I'd probably get the new one but I don't think I'm going to side grade.


----------



## PhilA (Jun 22, 2014)

From memory the shutter speed for the f2.8 shots was up near 1/1000th so no shake (a tripod was also used). As I deliberately mentioned in that comparison my 2.8 is old (6-7 years) and as had a lot of use so may not be returning "as new" results. That said it has pretty much been like that as long as I remember (and has been tested by Canon service twice).


----------



## Act444 (Jun 22, 2014)

Thanks for posting. And yes, in my experience the 2.8 really IS that underwhelming in the corners, even at f8. 

The new 4 shows significant improvement here at the wide end, but otherwise there really seems to be little to no difference at the other settings based on what I've seen so far.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 23, 2014)

It is too bad f/11 was not tested, that is the 16-35 f/2.8L II's sweet spot.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 23, 2014)

Act444 said:


> Thanks for posting. And yes, in my experience the 2.8 really IS that underwhelming in the corners, even at f8.
> 
> The new 4 shows significant improvement here at the wide end, but otherwise there really seems to be little to no difference at the other settings based on what I've seen so far.



For landscape work, which is generally stopped down, then no there isn't a lot of optical benefit of this new f4 lens over the existing f2.8 II version. But if you need to shoot wide open, the the optical improvements are clear.
It's looking a lot sharper in the corners and that looks partially due to the newer flat film plane. But the increased contrast and colour looks very good. I can't help think that the f2.8 was slightly over exposing and the f4 is slightly under? There's a huge difference in the blue sky colour between them.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 23, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I can't help think that the f2.8 was slightly over exposing and the f4 is slightly under? There's a huge difference in the blue sky colour between them.



I've noticed that my f4 zoom lenses under expose by about one third when compared with faster lenses. At first I thought that this must be to do with the lower 'T' stop, and indeed the difference in exposure fitted the difference in the 'T' stop of the lenses exactly - until I got the 24-70 f4 IS which has a 'T' stop of f4 yet does exactly the same thing. Can anyone explain why this should be the case ?


----------



## orrokinawa (Jun 23, 2014)

Picked up my copy of the 16-35 yesterday, did a few test shots between it and my 24mm TS. So far I am pleasantly thrilled with the purchase, I no longer have the 17-40 to compare it to, but after I purchased the 24mm TS a couple years back the 17-40 sat in the cabinet to never be used again until I sold it a few weeks back.

Here are few images the first being the left 100% crop of the 16-35, second being a 100% crop of the 24mm TS, shifted to the left. The third a shot into the sun and palm to evaluate CA, I couldnt find any CA and limited flare.

Shooting at the horizon barrel distortion was minimal very happy with the purchase, great lens overall.


----------



## Invertalon (Jun 23, 2014)

This lens looks phenomenal... So happy mine arrives tomorrow. I am sure it will easily become my most used lens, no doubt. I am even debating to sell off my 24-70 II and switch to a 35L and 85L combo instead... ;D


----------



## orrokinawa (Jun 23, 2014)

Here is a couple shooting in the rice fields here in Okinawa I did to compare bokeh and sharpness. One at f/4 and the other at f/9 all at 16mm.


----------



## douglaurent (Jun 23, 2014)

corner sharpness is really good and much better than on the 2.8 version. attached are some quick comparisons, also including the 17TS and nikon 14-24.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 23, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> Time to sell the TS-E 17. Better sharpness, better handling and operation, ability to use filters, and cheaper. Yes please!



Lol....just don't try to swing the front element on your new 16-35 f4 LIS!


----------



## Ruined (Jun 23, 2014)

orrokinawa said:


> Picked up my copy of the 16-35 yesterday, did a few test shots between it and my 24mm TS. So far I am pleasantly thrilled with the purchase, I no longer have the 17-40 to compare it to, but after I purchased the 24mm TS a couple years back the 17-40 sat in the cabinet to never be used again until I sold it a few weeks back.
> 
> Here are few images the first being the left 100% crop of the 16-35, second being a 100% crop of the 24mm TS, shifted to the left. The third a shot into the sun and palm to evaluate CA, I couldnt find any CA and limited flare.
> 
> Shooting at the horizon barrel distortion was minimal very happy with the purchase, great lens overall.



Lens looks fantastic overall. Only criticism is f/4 obviously, and looking at your sun photo I prefer the 16-35 II sunburst over the 16-35 f/4 IS. 18 points is too many IMO.


----------

