# Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...



## ahsanford (Jun 26, 2014)

And Bryan Carnathan at TDP is first:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9939

Please post links to any reviews that you see on this thread. My rental of this lens just arrived -- can't wait to put it through it's paces this weekend.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 27, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> And Bryan Carnathan at TDP is first:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9939
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing.

I am pretty impressed how well it is at f4 already. especially compared to the 16-35 F/2.8L II
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2

If I would go more into this focal range, I definetly would want it. Having the 17-40L already, it's too much money to spend. But maybe someday... *sigh*


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2014)

Basic unboxing and first test shots from DP Review:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3690354#forum-post-53917409

JPEGs are in the story, but there is a Flickr link to full res in the first comment below the story.

- A


----------



## vlim (Jun 30, 2014)

Full review done by Bryan !

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx


----------



## Ruined (Jun 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Yup, in terms of IQ, this lens just blows away the 16-35 and 17-40.
> 
> If you've still got one of those two lenses, you could try giving it away for free because they're not really worth having now.



Unless you are a professional that does events. Better corner sharpness from f/4-f/8 is not worth losing f/2.8. IS can't help motion blur.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Dilbert, I agree with your tradeoff math and will probably buy the new lens, but if you are shooting moving subjects, sharp corners mean little if your subject is blurry from too slow of a shutter speed. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> ...if you are shooting moving subjects, sharp corners mean little if your subject is blurry from too slow of a shutter speed.



+1

I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II instead of the smaller/lighter/cheaper f/4 version for the extra stop of shutter speed.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



In the range I personally have in addition to the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, the 24mm f/1.4L and a 35mm f/2 IS USM. But, neither is a zoom (helpful at receptions), and neither can do 16-23mm. I also have the 24-70mm f/2.8L II, which is a zoom - but once again cannot do wider than 24mm. Hence, the importance of the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. I don't want to be stuck with the limitations of a f/4 lens. Also, the corner sharpness is unimportant when taking pictures of people as you need to put them in the center of the frame to avoid perspective distortion anyway in most of this focal length - center sharpness is far more critical. Also, IS for my needs is virtually useless below 70mm as my shutter will usually be 1/100 to avoid motion blur.

Believe me, if I didn't think I needed f/2.8 on the 16-35, I would sell the f/2.8L II on eBay as even today it sells for more used than the 16-35 f/4 IS costs new at full MSRP - I would essentially be able to do a swap with no net loss. But, I don't want to be put in the situation where I need 16-23mm f/2.8 and have to take a compromised picture because I don't have it.

Finally, note that the 16-35 f/2.8L II is actually sharp across the frame at f/11 (and pretty close at f/8). So if you have this lens, all you have to do is stop down - which you probably would be doing for DOF in landscape anyway. f/4 is really where the 16-35 f/2.8L II gets trounced in sharpness by the 16-35 f/4 IS, but that is the aperture that would likely be least used by either event or landscape photographers - too slow for event photographers, not enough DOF for landscape.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 30, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> And Bryan Carnathan at TDP is first:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9939
> 
> ...



Also see the review on the Photography Blog website. http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_16_35mm_f4_l_is_usm_review/
They come to the same conclusions. Enjoy


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 30, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Finally, note that the 16-35 f/2.8L II is actually sharp across the frame at f/11 (and pretty close at f/8). So if you have this lens, all you have to do is stop down - which you probably would be doing for DOF in landscape anyway. f/4 is really where the 16-35 f/2.8L II gets trounced in sharpness by the 16-35 f/4 IS, but that is the aperture that would likely be least used by either event or landscape photographers - too slow for event photographers, not enough DOF for landscape.


Have a look at these comparisons at F/11, though.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
(mouseover the aperture values to see the pictures change)

I would not call that "sharp across the frame" for the F/2.8 lens. At 16mm, the F/4 lens is very slightly better in the corners at F/11. And at 24mm and 35mm, it's clearly better. The new zoom even fares well against a Zeiss prime on that same page.

The _one_ distinction is why a boatload of landscape people will buy the new F/4 lens. No Canon UWA zoom has delivered sharp corners... until possibly now. I'd like a few more reviews corroborating TDP's findings, but I'm optimistic.

- A


----------



## rs (Jun 30, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Also see the review on the Photography Blog website. http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_ef_16_35mm_f4_l_is_usm_review/
> They come to the same conclusions. Enjoy



I'm confused. I thought it was an EF mount lens:

[quote author=photographyblog.com]
It has no aperture ring, which is no big deal unless you wanted to use it on a very old film body.
[/quote]


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 1, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Every review/poster of samples has shown similar IQ.



(inferring what you meant) _similar IQ... between the two lenses?_ 

If so, I refer you to my prior post. I think Carnathan's shots show a clear corner sharpness improvement for the new lens at 24mm and 35mm -- even at F/11. At 16mm, I'd say the shots are a pretty much a draw if you stop down to F/11.

(if that's not what you meant, apologies -- wasn't sure)


And we should expect a sharper lens based on those MTF charts, right?

- A


----------



## AtSea (Jul 1, 2014)

It's pretty awful how littered that photographyblog is with ads. I understand 1 or 2 subtle ad placements for revenue, but that page looks like trash.


----------



## Woody (Jul 1, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Every review/poster of samples has shown similar IQ.
> ...



Dilbert is refering to your statement 'No Canon UWA zoom has delivered sharp corners... until possibly now.'


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 1, 2014)

And here's my super quickie sharpness offering.

I didn't have a 16-35 to compare this against, so I compared it at 24mm against my 24-70 F/4L IS. 

Approach:

* Both lenses set to 24mm
* Taken at F/4, F/5.6, F/8, F/11
* Tripod, cable release, LiveView focusing, etc. 
* Aperture priority @ standard exposure 
* Did not have peripheral illumination on
* RAW processed in ACR, sharpness set to 50 and everything else was default; no lens correction profiles were used

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/14546466862/sizes/o/

What you'll see here are the actual 1000x1000 pixels in the corner of images captures at four different apertures on two different lenses. Make sure you click on the 'original' size at the top to see this without downsampling problems.

Note that at 10x, I was focusing on the _boards_ of the bench, not the ground behind the bench.

Clear limitation: I was in a mad rush (the rental is due back tomorrow) so I shot a scene without a clear near-infinity planar target (like a house). It was a park bench that was within perhaps 5-6 feet of the camera. So I actually LiveView focused at 10x _in the corner itself_ (on the bench boards as said before). So these shots were not center focused -- they represented the best focusing I could get in the corner of interest.

My thoughts were good ones. The new 16-35 F/4L IS lens out-resolved a very sharp L zoom at 24mm in the corners. That and my other finding about vignetting with a Lee filter holder...

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21554.msg409701#msg409701

...has me leaning strongly towards buying this lens.

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 1, 2014)

Anyway here are two where I managed to get the placement of the focal plane reasonably close between the two lenses, if still not quite the same really. I accidentally set the 16-35 II to a touch wider FOV. The lighting changed so development had to be a bit different and I didn't quite match, anyway don't judge on large scale contrast or colors or such since this wasn't a good test for that.

I let ACR do CA correction (probably should have left it uncorrected since this is a demo), applied 21 sharpness at 0.6 in ACR and then 44% high ISO sharpening in NIK with edge/area setting pretty well balanced. No luma NR. ACR chroma NR on 8. No distortion corrections applied (found a house to shoot so you can really see the distortion differences).

24-70mm f/2.8L II at f/8 and 24mm:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3904/14536246791_b966c88403_o.jpg
16-35mm f/4L IS at f/8 and just under 24mm:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3882/14539623435_acec6ec0d3_o.jpg

I got a strange impression that the 24-70 II seemed to keep the center portion of the image near max sharpness, especially near the left part of the house over a slightly wider range of focal tweaks, but I might have been misled since the focusing wheel for the 16-35 IS is VERY, VERY short throw. It seemed like it was easier to not get 100% max sharpness at THE point of focus with the 16-35 IS for whatever reason, be it the lens or the short throw focusing wheel or whatnot. (EDIT: note I accidentally wrote "16-35 II instead of 16-35 IS in this paragraph originally, now fixed")

(for this set the aim had been to try to get peak crispness on the bricks just to the left of the door, and let the DOF fall where it did)

Anyway if it's this hard to tell apart from the 24-70 II it can't be that bad .
Although I still have an overall impression that the 24-70 II might be made to more easily have super ultra bite to it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 1, 2014)

I'm getting the feeling that there is a reason many sites (as well as myself) mostly to stick to lab tests or a ton of general shooting to get a general feel for a lens and don't try with a lot of careful real world comparisons as between slightly differing true f-stops, different field curvature, the surprisingly large differences in various parts of the frame that the TINIEST nudge of the focusing makes when shooting complex scenes with tons of detail at all sorts of depths up and down and side to side and back to front (yes even at 16mm and 24mm and f/8 or even f/10!), it's hard to carry out a decent test, one minute I am like oh man the 24-70 II truly is much sharper dead center than the 16-35, the next minute, hmm maybe it's actually close, one minute man the 16-35 does the near corners better, the next hmm maybe not because in that frame what I thought I focused on looks worse but this other focusing trial makes the corners a touch worse when the main subject is more similar in micro-contrast and yet at the same time dead center bottom frame near subject the 16-35 is crisper and same for far subject upper top center and on and on, just a little tweak, even at 24mm and f/8 where people talk about extreme DOF and a touch focusing difference making no difference, well it makes a lot of difference.

And you really need to shoot on a 100% cloudless day near noon in an open area where you won't get brightness constantly subtly changing and changes in shadowing and angle of light hitting the scene every few seconds. As how bright the light and what angle it glances off things can change apparent relative micro-contrast, etc.

It's almost easier to get a feeling by just randomly popping of tons of shots and eventually noticing that one lens, say a 24-105, just seems to never nail certain things, while some others do or doing that and sticking to easier scenes with less depth and just getting a general feeling after a while whether a lens can ever make far edges or corners sharp. Or a careful indoor chart test (but these are a bit tricky for wide angles, it's hard to test the edges in a normal fashion and it doesn't tell you as much about FC). It's almost like either strict test chart constant indoor lighting procedure or just a ton of random snapping makes it easier to get a sense than attempting a too quick supposedly careful real world tricky outdoor test.

But these tests where you have a scene with all sorts of depth and can't find a 100% cloudless day, etc. makes it tricky. And you really need to take like at least 12 focusing attempts, trying to exactly focus on the same spot and maybe another set where you keep trying to get best overall balance of all things in focus at once. Tricky. I have shots that I could show that would make the same lens appear to have somewhat noticeable different corner performance and peak center sharpness and difference in focusing was considerably small. If I labelled on lens A and one lens B you might think boy those lenses perform quite differently .

One curious thing is that both 24-70 II and 16-35 f/4 IS set to 24mm and f/8, it seems like I can get center frame top distant and center frame bottom close both a touch crisper with the 16-35 than with the 24-70 which seems to hint that the 24-70 II is truer to the f-stops and gives a touch less DOF (and more brightness) for the same aperture, OTOH the extreme corners might be a touch crisper on 24-70 on the torture test scene (maybe a sharpness difference or maybe a field curvature issue or maybe just a nudge of the focus as I'm still not sure I quite got the placement of focal plane quite exactly the same for both, it's very tricky to do, maybe with some giant slanted ruler or an array of cereal boxes to get a better sense of exact focusing, but just based off focusing on a real world scene, it's very tricky, even with more than one attempt, I bet you need a good 12 tries at least).

I also notice that even with copies of the same exact lens and with the camera left locked down tight on a tripod it seems like the framing slightly chances, perhaps hinting at slight tilts of the lens mounts copy to copy being common, which makes it all the more tricky to compare real world.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 1, 2014)

More reviews...

This brief one is from Ben Neumann:
http://www.benneumannphotographyblog.com/canon-16-35-f4-review/

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 1, 2014)

Yet another review...

This one's a first glance review from SLR Lounge, who seem to be reviewing this on crop bodies:

http://www.slrlounge.com/canons-new-16-35-f4l-initial-thoughts-cautiously-optimistic/

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 1, 2014)

Yet another one. This is a side by side video review of stills taken with the new 16-35 compared against the Tokina 16-28 F/2.8:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT4vQZckk7Q

- A


----------



## brad-man (Jul 2, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Yet another one. This is a side by side video review of stills taken with the new 16-35 compared against the Tokina 16-28 F/2.8:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT4vQZckk7Q
> 
> - A



Yup. I have the Tokina and it was, until now, sharper than Canon's offerings. But it's bigger, heavier, has that bulbous and difficult-to-filter front element, and doesn't handle flare nearly as well (unless you like that sort of thing). I also suspect the Canon is more effectively weather sealed, though this is pretty much a guess.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 2, 2014)

A fun unboxing video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpTaVMCpfvI

(Made by noneother than one of your fellow CR Forum dwellers! -- see his familiar icon below the video)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 2, 2014)

A really long review video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db3GvPz6nbI

Note: it's in German, but he did do a number of side by side shots at similar settings with the 16-35 F/2.8L II and walked around his shots in comparison mode to show the virtues of the new lens. I have not watched it all, but you might find it helpful.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Lets see. The trade off is 1 stop of ISO for sharp across the frame.



But wait, I thought:



dilbert said:


> Anyone that focuses on image quality* always uses* raw files at *ISO 100* on tripod. Everything else is a compromise in one form or another.



Guess not.

Personally, I'll probably buy this lens. Seems like a bargain for shots where I control the lighting.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



Yes, it's also why I never much tried to post up real scenes in a scientific test manner before, it's tricky. I'm trying this time, but it's very tricky. I used charts and constant indoor lighting and general real world impression discussion and a few sample pics. It's hard to use tests for UWA though, at least for me, since I need to put the test chart awfully close to test edge performance in direct fashion, other choice is to rotate camera so edges face a distant test chart, that's not quite the same though and it doesn't tell as much about real world FC.

You still have to take great care with charts and constant lighting too though, as DxO seems to have not yet discovered though, or perhaps only very slowly discovering (see: 16-35 II having best corner performance at f/2.8, 70-200 2.8 II being the worst at 200mm f/2.8 of all the Canon 70-200 2.8s; 70-300 non-L having better 300mm performance than 70-300L and 300 f/4L, 24-70 f/4 IS supposedly having mediocre edges at 70mm; etc.).


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 2, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


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



Or you can do it the way TDP does it -- I believe Bryan Carnathan now shoots head to head comparisons simultaneously on separate bodies to ensure the light is the same.

Either way, lens testing is road to madness. I say rent before you buy and you'll never be upset.

- A


----------



## wsheldon (Jul 2, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> ...
> Either way, lens testing is road to madness. I say rent before you buy and you'll never be upset.
> 
> - A



Even that isn't a guarantee, given sample-to-sample variation in lenses and lens-body interactions. Check the LensRentals blog for some large sample-size comparisons of popular lenses to see how scattered they are in IQ and focus accuracy, e.g. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-perfect-lens

Bottom line is that imaging perfection is a unicorn chase, requiring lots of free time and money. Not to say that I'll stop reading these tests and lusting too


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 3, 2014)

Here's another:
http://www.davidmurphey.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f4-usm-lens-review/#.U7Vjk0BUhI0

Summary:
Wow, not even close. Canon clearly has a winner with the new EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM lens. It holds details well in the extreme corners and it’s almost free of chromatic aberrations. It’s definitely worth the upgrade from the 17-40. While I don’t have a direct comparison to the 16-35mm f/2.8 II, I’ve used that lens in the past and found it about equal to the 17-40 in the mid range apertures. if you don’t need the extra 1 stop, the new EF 16-35mm is the way to go for an extreme wide angle zoom lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2014)

And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine. I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.

But the _sample pictures_ I see do not give a ringing endorsement of sharper corners other than new lens has more useful corners _at larger apertures_. 

So I looked at PZ's sharpness data, and my eyes may not fooling me after all:
*
@ F/4 @ Widest FL:*
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3342 2730 *1073*
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3482 2945 2195
16-35 F/4L IS: 3540 2826 *2556*
*
@ F/8 @ Widest FL:*
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3278 2896 *2197*
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3249 2882 2744 
16-35 F/4L IS: 3390 3023 2766
*
@ F/11 @ Widest FL:*
(Center / Border / Corner)

17-40 F/4L: 3012 2760 2577
16-35 F/2.8 II: 3000 2734 2669
16-35 F/4L IS: 3059 2796 2614

And, without transcribing it all, the relationship on the longest FL end is similar. PhotoZone only gave it a 3.5 star (out of five) for optical quality, and with the numbers above, I can see why. 

So -- were we to assume this data is correct (remember, PZ only gets one copy of a lens) -- we _might _think that:


The new lens will, in fact, *not *be sharper at the apertures landscape photographers shoot
The new lens is sharper in the corners for more wide open apertures.

Do you folks buy this? For those who own the new 16-35 and either the old 16-35 or 17-40, have you had a similar experience?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 6, 2014)

And Kai's classic adjective-laden review of the 16-35 F/4L IS:
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-16-35mm-f-4l/MjM5NzkyOTAy

- A


----------



## digital-jesus (Jul 6, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1
> 
> I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine. I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.
> ...



You are 100% right. I came to the same conclusion, so I will continue with the 17-40.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 6, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1
> 
> I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine. I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.
> ...



Hi,
I think photozone is accurate, their results match those of TDP.

Versus the 16-35mm f/2.8L II - I've been saying this since the 16-35mm f/4 IS came out. The main areas you see significant improvement is f/4-f/5.6, which is generally too narrow for events, but too wide for traditional landscape shots. f/8 has minimal improvement that likely would not be noticeable in real world use, and even in strict testing f/11 appears to be about the same in both. Plus, I actually like the 16-35mm f/2.8L II sunstars better than the new f/4 IS, which is subjective. So, in most cases I would recommend those who have the 16-35 f/2.8L II to hold on to it, unless you really truly definitely will never need f/2.8 - and also want that extra sharpness at f/4-f/5.6.

Versus the 17-40mm f/4 - I think there is a good case in upgrading to the 16-35 f/4 IS. While the 16-35 f/4 IS will not make you a better photographer, I think it does offer a noticeable improvement over the 17-40L at all apertures at f/8 or wider. Having that big improvement at f/8 is significant IMO, as f/8 is useful for landscape albeit a little wide. But, once again at f/11 it becomes very close - still the 16-35mm f/4 IS will be a better bet due to the new coatings which reduce flare. Also, sunstars on the 16-35mm f/4 IS appear superior to those on the 17-40 as another reason to upgrade, but again I don't feel either's competes with the 16-35 II f/2.8's sunstars.


----------



## fugu82 (Jul 6, 2014)

I am seriously considering trading in my 16-35II f/2.8 on the new f/4 IS, simply because the f/4 reportedly plays very nicely with IR [unlike the miserably awful 2.8 in IR]. I don't expect to miss that stop, and will get a dual-purpose UWA.


----------



## Otter (Jul 6, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1
> 
> I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine. I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.
> ...



Numbers aside, if I look at a comparison of image quality between the 16-35mm 2.6 and F4 here :

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

I find a noticeable difference in the mid and corners at F11, which tells my eyes not to trust the numbers.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 6, 2014)

Otter said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
> ...



I disagree, the noticeable difference I see in the mid and corners at f/11 are CA, not sharpness. Of course, you can remove CA in post. f/4-f/5.6 are where there are truly noticeable sharpness differences in the corners.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Jul 6, 2014)

Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 6, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.


I have compared it to my 24-70 II, 24L, TS-E 17, and TS-E 24 II and it's every bit as sharp as those lenses, with the exception of the TS-E 24 and the 24-70II @ 35mm. At f/11 they are all pretty close, though I'd give the 16-35 f/4 IS & 24-70II the edge in color and contrast. Really. The corners are MUCH sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8 II that I sold in part because CA is almost non-existent. Distortion isn't great at 16mm, but I'm sure DxO & Adobe will take care of that soon. The IS is very odd because you can't see the effect like you do with an unwieldy telephoto, but I think it will be a great travel/walkaround lens.

I'll put together the photos in the coming days (both brick wall & real-world shots) for everyone to take a look at.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 6, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.



Photographers take amazing photos, not gear  But, gear can make it easier...


----------



## CanoKnight (Jul 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> The IS is very odd because you can't see the effect like you do with an unwieldy telephoto, but I think it will be a great travel/walkaround lens.



The IS is for shooting video while handholding.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Mr_Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.
> ...



Really looking forward to your photos. I'm particularly interested in your comparison between the 16-35 4L and the 24 TS-E as I was seriously considering the latter before the former was announced. Thanks.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.



Yes, it's a lovely lens. But for landscapes, which is what I am going to use it for, I need to know that I am not just paying +$400 for IS over the 17-40 F/4L.

So I'm not being critic. I think I am going to buy this lens. But before my money comes out, I am asking this group:

1) Did Canon really deliver on those stellar MTF charts? Is this is the sharp-in-the-corner landscape lens many have been looking for?

2) For landscape work on a FF body (both on a tripod and handheld), and presuming that I want an UWA zoom, is this the best one to get?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2014)

CanoKnight said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > The IS is very odd because you can't see the effect like you do with an unwieldy telephoto, but I think it will be a great travel/walkaround lens.
> ...



That's _one _thing you can do with it. 

IS is *fantastic* for stills of non-moving scenes in poor light. Compared to a non-IS lens of the same specs, you can:


Net the same shot with 3-4 stops lower ISO.
Keep the ISO the same and walk the aperture down 3-4 stops and get more working DOF in a sharper smaller aperture.

Put another way: There are certain places/circumstances where you cannot use or do not have a tripod or a flash, and that's when IS can save your bacon. As a handheld, natural light shooter (98% of the time), I absolutely love it at *all *focal lengths, especially at night.

- A


----------



## PhilA (Jul 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> So I'm not being critic. I think I am going to buy this lens. But before my money comes out, I am asking this group:
> 
> 1) Did Canon really deliver on those stellar MTF charts? Is this is the sharp-in-the-corner landscape lens many have been looking for?
> 
> ...



Yes.

Yes.

Unless you have the absolute need for f2.8 (and for whatever reason upping the ISO won't work for you) then the f4L is much sharper - at least from f4 to f8 - in the corners. The centres are pretty much the same on both. Plus you have the bonus of the IS.

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


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2014)

PhilA said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm not being critic. I think I am going to buy this lens. But before my money comes out, I am asking this group:
> ...


Thanks. 

Yeah, I'm a jerk for asking that first question.  It's clear from the data I have linked (as well as samples from a number of reviewers) that _at landscape apertures_ this lens is *not* a _massive _improvement like the MTF charts implied. It's a very good lens, don't get me wrong, but the MTF charts (esp. in comparison to the lackluster 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L charts) would have had me expecting larger improvements.

But for the other reasons mentioned -- IS, good control of CA, 77mm filters, etc. -- I'm probably still going to buy it anyway. My 2nd question is still a resounding 'Yes' to me right now. ;D

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 7, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Mr_Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.
> ...



My copy of 16-35/4L simply put old but trusty 17-40/4L into retirement. Those cornes are improved quite noticeably. No horrid CA, no mushiness, no lacking contrast. Even wide open, it's quite usable in the corners, from about f/8, it's satisfactory sharp enough for most people I guess.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 7, 2014)

Khalai said:


> My copy of 16-35/4L simply put old but trusty 17-40/4L into retirement. Those cornes are improved quite noticeably. No horrid CA, no mushiness, no lacking contrast. Even wide open, it's quite usable in the corners, from about f/8, it's satisfactory sharp enough for most people I guess.


My copy is wonderful as well and I couldn't be happier with my new lens.



ahsanford said:


> It's clear from the data I have linked (as well as samples from a number of reviewers) that _at landscape apertures_ this lens is *not* a _massive _improvement like the MTF charts implied. It's a very good lens, don't get me wrong, but the MTF charts (esp. in comparison to the lackluster 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L charts) would have had me expecting larger improvements.


Yes, it's not a _massive _improvement in numbers, but when shooting real subjects, the improved contrast, color, and absence of CA goes a long way to make better photos, even if the resolving power at f/11 and f/16 isn't significantly higher.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > My copy of 16-35/4L simply put old but trusty 17-40/4L into retirement. Those cornes are improved quite noticeably. No horrid CA, no mushiness, no lacking contrast. Even wide open, it's quite usable in the corners, from about f/8, it's satisfactory sharp enough for most people I guess.
> ...



I rented the new 16-35 F/4L IS and was pleased with it. I just didn't have the flight hours logged with the other two Canon UWA zooms to know if it was better / worth its money. I know I don't need the F/2.8, so it's really just a question of the 16-35 F/4L IS or the 17-40 f/4L. The clear read from everyone is that the new lens is certainly worth it. 

I hereby drop my resolution numbers question. 

I had also forgotten from my 28mm F/2.8 IS usage that nighttime/low-light handheld use -- even with IS -- rarely lets me stop down to F/8, F/11, etc. without hitting 5 digit ISO levels. So the increased sharpness at F/4 - F/8 will _absolutely_ get used in my hands.

Looks like it's time to move something from the B&H wishlist to the shopping cart...

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2014)

And we're finally getting some Flickr traffic in the group that was setup for this new lens:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/

Some folks are posting full-res shots for download, FYI.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2014)

And Bryan Carnathan has obtained and tested a second 16-35 F/4L IS lens. It's not super-obvious how to find this on his site, so I've made a link for comparing the two:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 7, 2014)

Sample photos are up on LensTip: 
http://www.lenstip.com/2097-news-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_-_sample_images.html

I look forward to their review - they seem to be one of the more thorough and consist review sites.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 7, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Otter said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



How does the 16-35 II do for in forest shooting when you get dense branches against white clouds and sky? Is it purple fringe city like most of the older UWA/regular FF zooms or is it low? That kind of CA is a pain to fix and this new one handles that fairly well.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 7, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> How does the 16-35 II do for in forest shooting when you get dense branches against white clouds and sky? Is it purple fringe city like most of the older UWA/regular FF zooms or is it low? That kind of CA is a pain to fix and this new one handles that fairly well.


That was my experience with the lens, which made the 24-70II a revelation when I started using it. The 16-35 f/4 IS does very well with CA, particularly once it's stopped down to f/8 or so. It's only at the most extreme part of the corner and even then it's just a pixel wide at most. Here's a sample - it's been compressed in terms of DR (highlight lowered, shadows brightened), but is otherwise uncorrected/processed. This is a 100% crop from the far left of the frame about 200px from the top. It's not a good example of the sharpness as it's handheld at f/16 and these leaves were essentially black before I pulled up the shadows, but it shows how little CA there is:


----------



## bosshog7_2000 (Jul 7, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Yup, in terms of IQ, this lens just blows away the 16-35 and 17-40.
> 
> If you've still got one of those two lenses, you could try giving it away for free because they're not really worth having now.



Holy inflammatory statement Batman! Seriously....enough of the rhetoric already. For my purposes the 17-40 is a gem of a lens...but then again I just use it for landscapes between f8-f11. I'm sure the new 16-35 f4 is a great lens...and it should be given that Canon is WAY behind in providing superior quality UWA zooms, but it's not like their existing lenses are garbage. Truth be told the UWA zooms in the current lineup are better than most of the photogs who buy them.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 7, 2014)

bosshog7_2000 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, in terms of IQ, this lens just blows away the 16-35 and 17-40.
> ...



generally agreed, although it is starting to seem, that at least on the wider end the new one is better even at landscape apertures than the 17-40 and even a touch compared to 16-35 II and not just for sharpness but for resistance to nasty purple fringing and stuff.



> Truth be told the UWA zooms in the current lineup are better than most of the photogs who buy them.



Personally I think this types of statements are as silly as the other guy saying the only possible place for the 16-35 II and 17-40L is in the trash, they are useless now 100%. It's nonsense, heck we one swapped top end super-tele and 1 series with newbie sports shooters rebels and lenses and guess what the newbies some without even the best talent on top all instantly did better with the top gear. So it's silly to go around saying how most equipment is better than most photogs who buy it. And how much skill does it take to get a much crisper less technically defect riddled 24mm image out of a 24-70 II than a 24-105L? Not much. Of course, sure at the end of the day the photographer has to take the picture and a 24-70 II hardly guarantees a nice shot, but that is a different matter. (of course this latter point also tells why the threads where people share 1/4MP downsamples to get each other excited and you have people saying oh man now I need to get that lens are ridiculous too, at 1/4MP far and away most defects are downsize away so, for the most part, although not quite entirely, it's just the shots that are exciting or not and getting a 24-70 II and then shooting a cat in your backyard won't quite manage to give you the same picture as that stunning shot of the Na Pali Coast or a lion in Zimbabwe.)

But if someone wants less CA of a certain type or better crispness who is anyone to say they don't deserve it because their current equipment is better than they are?


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 7, 2014)

These reviews, observations and sample images are all very positive, and recommend the lens quite well.

I just sold my 11-year-old 17-40, which was very good quality, but little used since I moved to full frame in 2007. That sale, along with the sale of my 8-year-old 70-200/2.8 IS I, funded my purchase of a 70-200/2.8 II.

I don't have any immediate plans to buy the new 16-35/4 IS, but won't hesitate to do so, should I find a need in the future. Thanks for all the feedback!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 7, 2014)

Great thread, gang! Thanks a lot.

If you haven't already seen Mackguyver's personal review with copious comparisons for download, please go here and read all about it. It's a very nice piece of work on this part:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21691.0

- A


----------



## bosshog7_2000 (Jul 8, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> bosshog7_2000 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I stand by my statement...the TRUE differences in image quality between a 17-40mm and a 16-35f4 are negligible compared to the skill required to get the most out of them. Your thinking is why so many people try and 'buy' themselves Galen Rowell quality landscapes by buying the latest, greatest gear and upgrading every year...which is fine I guess if you can afford it. The fact is though that a 17-40mm is capable of providing world class imagery if you know what you're doing. You can't buy an artistic vision...


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 8, 2014)

Just pulled the trigger today on this new lens. I haven't had an ultrawide in my arsenal since I made the move to FF two years ago, so I am really looking forward to this.

Thanks for all the feedback, gang. Much appreciated.

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 9, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Just pulled the trigger today on this new lens. I haven't had an ultrawide in my arsenal since I made the move to FF two years ago, so I am really looking forward to this.
> 
> Thanks for all the feedback, gang. Much appreciated.
> 
> - A


I don't think you'll regret it - I'm having a lot of fun with it! My latest is trying photos of my cats (they are _somewhat _willing subjects) in very low light to try out the IS, which works very well.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Just pulled the trigger today on this new lens. I haven't had an ultrawide in my arsenal since I made the move to FF two years ago, so I am really looking forward to this.
> ...



Yeah... I got this lens for landscape work, but what did I do when my rental arrived? I insisted upon a cow-in-the-pasture UWA closeup. 

I am a child.

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 9, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


LOL - but pets are truly the best!


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 9, 2014)

And I apologize in advance, but this came up in the Google results:

Ken Rockwell's review

Sadly he hasn't tested to see if it makes noise when he shakes it, at least not yet 

OTOH his corner crops of the palm tree seem in line with what I'm seeing with this lens vs. the 2.8 II, even though it looks like the 2.8 shot has some motion blur


----------



## Learner (Jul 9, 2014)

My first time posting pics in this forum. I love this lense!


----------



## thedman (Jul 9, 2014)

Just took it for a spin in Glacier and Banff. So sharp I never felt the need to get the Zeiss 21mm out of the bag.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 9, 2014)

Learner & thedman - thank you both for posting the wonderful shots! I have created a thread in our "Lens Gallery" section of the forum would welcome you both to (re)post them, along with your future work, there:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21669.0


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 15, 2014)

B&H mini-review:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/hands-review/hands-new-canon-ef-16-35mm-f4l-usm-lens


----------



## caruser (Jul 15, 2014)

thedman said:


> Just took it for a spin in Glacier and Banff. So sharp I never felt the need to get the Zeiss 21mm out of the bag.


Thanks, just what I needed to hear for a severe attack of GAS  The perfect companion to my 70-200 f/4 IS.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 16, 2014)

I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.


----------



## infared (Jul 16, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.



Yeah....I have a Zeiss 21mm and the Sigma 35mm Art that I did personal, informal testing against my new Canon 16-35mm IS. So...I used to never use my 16-35mm f/2.8 II because the Zeiss and the Sigma blew it away....but damn...these are all very close in sharpness now....hmmmmmmm...the others do offer the faster f/stops though.

I have noticed some funky motion blur in some of my shots caused by the I S though, when I am shooting at reasonable shutter speeds like 1/30... Anyone else seeing this issue?


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 16, 2014)

infared said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.
> ...


I haven't personally, but I haven't shot longer than perhaps 1/8s exposures handheld with this lens yet. Just curious: have you verified it's a legit lens event and not wind, moving subject, etc.? 

I just assumed the IS worked like other Canon lenses. Reviewers like Bryan Carnathan certainly raved about it:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

_"Under ideal conditions (standing indoors on a solid floor) and shooting completely freehand, at 16mm, I obtained a decent sharp image percentage down to about .6 seconds for just over 3 stops of assistance. A very slow trail-off in keeper rate ensued and with an occasional sharp image at exposures as long as an unreal 2.5 seconds (as shared above and a new record for me). At 35mm, I had a decent sharp image percentage down to about .4 seconds (just under 4 stops) with a few sharp images remaining at exposures as long as 1 second."_ 

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 16, 2014)

infared said:


> I have noticed some funky motion blur in some of my shots caused by the I S though, when I am shooting at reasonable shutter speeds like 1/30... Anyone else seeing this issue?


I haven't seen anything, either, but most of the shots I've taken so far have been on a tripod with IS turned off.


----------



## infared (Jul 16, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



Ahsanford, 
Yeah..everything I have read is super positive about the IS. I am an extremely experienced photographer. I just took the three lenses into a decently lit area of my kitchen and did steady-Eddie hand-held shots. So I had no moving objects in the frame etc. In some of my shots with the Zeiss I shot as low as 1/25sec... And the images had classic motion blur...I expected it...but sometimes I can hold steady. My co/fusion/concern is when I shot with the New Canon zoom. I did not shoot below 1/8sec ...and I shot up into 1/30sec...well within (and above) the range that critics are raving that the lens can handle...now I would think that In the 1/8 area I could have a percentage of sharp shots...but when I start getting into the 1/20sec-1/30sec...I would expect all images to be sharp as the IS should compensate....but some of the images in this shutter range had that double-shot effect type blur...(I think that this is characteristic of IS attempting to freeze the shot, but failing). It was no just blur like I have with the Sigma and the Zeiss. I know what that looks like, all too often LOL!
I think we can agree that with the Canon lens on 16mm and the IS on, about 5ft. from subject at f/10 (no it isn't an out of focus phenomenon at this fstop.and I focus at a mid point in the depth of the frame)... These pics should be sharp EVERY time I hit the shutter with this much-touted IS....but some of the frames had that double image softness.
My thought is, and it is why I asked the question here is maybe I have a clunker with faulty IS?
I bought the lens @B &H so I have 30days to return it...
I will do some more testing and see if it is reoccurring.
Would you agree that at anywhere in the zoom range at 1/20sec all my shots should be crystal clear of stationary objects when focused in the middle of the depth of the scene at say f/9-f/16?
Like I said, I am very experienced and truly know and understand ALL the variables...except the IS ..LOL!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 16, 2014)

infared said:


> Ahsanford,
> Yeah..everything I have read is super positive about the IS. I am an extremely experienced photographer.
> 
> ...
> ...



Super helpful, thanks. I'd agree your test should absolutely net sharp shots. Something seems amiss.

Potential culprits:

[list type=decimal]
[*]How good is your grip / mechanics of holding the camera steady? I presume this is not your problem, but it's worth ruling out: pick a 'tough to handhold without IS' shutter speed (say 1/4s for a 16mm shot or a 1/15s for a 35mm shot) and take 10 shots _with and without_ the IS on. If the IS shots have a higher hit rate and the than the non-IS shots, that implies the IS is working and it may be your grip / holding technique.


[*]Do you know the IS is on _*and working?*_ One simple test is with your _ears_. Verify the IS switch is 'on' and switch the lens to MF (so you don't hear focusing adjustments) and then you press the shutter halfway _with your ear next to the lens_. You'll initially hear a little noise at half-shutter-press, but after you let go, the IS motor/mechanism/whatever should be whirring in the background for an additional moment or two. It's really, really faint with IS in the year 2014, but the sound is there if you listen for it. If you _don't_ hear that noise, I'd wonder if there was a glitch with the IS internals or possibly you have a faulty connection with the IS switch. I defer to the nerdy folks and professionals on this forum, but if you can't hear the IS going when the switch for IS is 'on', something is off and I'd consider returning the lens.


[*]It could be a poor AF, potentially. Take AF out of the possible root causes and repeat your test: switch to MF, go LiveView and 10x manually focus and repeat your 'tough to handhold without IS' test. And yes, you need to handhold during LiveView for this -- it shouldn't be too hard with these wide FLs (I'm reaching / speculating at this point.)
[/list]

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 17, 2014)

infared said:


> I have noticed some funky motion blur in some of my shots caused by the I S though, when I am shooting at reasonable shutter speeds like 1/30... Anyone else seeing this issue?



I think perhaps so, a few shots have had a weird large blobby region that has very poor sharpness while all over the place, even corners might be totally sharp, a bit odd.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 17, 2014)

infared said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



that sounds different than what I was talking about

I am having an impossible time getting 2 stops help from the IS though, more like 2/3rds to 1 stop only (unless I am say standing way out on a dock and then it fights the slight rocking in a way that nothing I could do myself to fight against, it probably helps 2 stops then).


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 17, 2014)

Just ran a crude IS test on my 5D3.

1) IS OFF at 16mm, I netted:


3 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
*1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure*
2) IS ON at 16mm, I netted:


5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure
*1.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)*
0 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure
3) IS OFF at 35mm, I netted:


5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
*1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure*
4) IS ON at 35mm, I netted:


5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
4.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure
*1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure*
0.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)

Granted, n of 5 is weak statistical power for a variable like my grip/shooting technique and the method of selecting sharp shots is decidedly subjective, but the numbers above suggest I'm seeing a sliver over *1 stop IS at 16mm* and about *3 stops IS at 35mm*.

Perhaps infrared has found something here. I don't want to go on a witch hunt, but can I ask others with this new lens to attempt a similar evaluation? Your grip / breathing very well may be better than mine, but the approach should work -- use non-IS to find where your ability fails you, and then see how much further IS lets you slow the shutter.

- A


----------



## infared (Jul 17, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Ahsanford,
> ...



Thanks for all the HELPFUL suggestions...I have tried to be very specific...have to be to diagnose the situation! Being vague and non descriptive won't get us anywhere. You have brought up some things that I have not tried.
So...I gave a listen...and I can hear the IS motor kick on and continuously run... I knew it was working as my IS shots were sharper than my non IS shots...but my concern is that the IS is not performing as intended or at 100%.
Your suggestion about using manual focus is a great idea...that will eliminate one more variable...I am going to shoot more tests over the next few days. I have a lot of IS lenses and also use Olympus MFT cameras as well...so I am no stranger to IS...and with all the rant about how fantastic the IS is on this lens I think that I am intuitively finding it lacking a little or that something is not quite right. Could be me , i.e. operator error or too much expectation! LOL!
I do have good grip tech, etc...but my experience is that if I go thru all those monkey shines to be as rock solid as possible it is to push my results past expectation...which many times I can...but if this lens is at all what it is touted to be I should expect consistent excellent results at 1/15-1/30 while casually (not carelessly) gripping the camera.
Don't you agree?


----------



## infared (Jul 17, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Just ran a crude IS test on my 5D3.
> 
> 1) IS OFF at 16mm, I netted:
> 
> ...



This is very helpful! THANKS!

I think I am not achieving stable images at your level, which from my experience and what I have read about this particular lens...your results are on target and what one should expect!
It may have been over excitement, I hope. I am going to test the lens thoroughly over the weekend and make my decision as to return it or keep it. This is frustrating...!
Thanks for the general sharpness percentages...now I know what I SHOULD expect!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2014)

For those testing the IS, are you half-pressing the shutter (or pressing AF-ON if you use BBF) and then letting the IS system operate for ~0.5 s to fully stabilize the image? I've often found that if you simply press the shutter on an IS lens, you get a shot that's not much better than no IS. Here are some tests I did with the 100L.


----------



## infared (Jul 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> For those testing the IS, are you half-pressing the shutter (or pressing AF-ON if you use BBF) and then letting the IS system operate for ~0.5 s to fully stabilize the image? I've often found that if you simply press the shutter on an IS lens, you get a shot that's not much better than no IS. Here are some tests I did with the 100L.


Good point!!!! I was not considering that although I was half pressing to focus most of the time so I think that the IS was up and running... after listening to the little motor start up you get a feel for what you are saying...it has to start and get up and running and it is NOT instantaneous. Thanks for the help!
I have the 100IS Macro too...and it seems to me that the IS performs better on that lens...so with a wide angle lens I would definitely expect the IS to be so much more effective considering less virtual movement due to the focal length of the wide angle zoom.
Thanks for the help.


----------



## sanj (Jul 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> For those testing the IS, are you half-pressing the shutter (or pressing AF-ON if you use BBF) and then letting the IS system operate for ~0.5 s to fully stabilize the image? I've often found that if you simply press the shutter on an IS lens, you get a shot that's not much better than no IS. Here are some tests I did with the 100L.



Thx much for this.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 17, 2014)

Neuro. Wow. Had no idea. My 5 shots were discrete shutter depressions, but they were in rapid succession.

Will check this out now. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 17, 2014)

IS data re-run with Neuro's advice in mind. A solid 2s run-up with the IS was used for each shot.

New IS data below. Same non-IS data as before.

1) IS OFF at 16mm, I netted:


3 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
*1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure*
2) IS ON at 16mm, I netted:


5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure
4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure
2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure
*1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure (two borderline ones were called 0.5 each)*
3) IS OFF at 35mm, I netted:


5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
4 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
*1 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure*
4) IS ON at 35mm, I netted:


5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/60s exposure
5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/30s exposure
5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/15s exposure
4.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/8s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
3.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/4s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
*2 out of 5 sharp shots at 1/2s exposure*
0.5 out of 5 sharp shots at 1s exposure (a borderline one was called 0.5)
I'll be damned. Neuro's trick shows 16mm IS is more like a 2 stop benefit, but the 35mm data only slightly improved (still around 3 stops).

Neuro, is this true with all IS lenses? That might imply sports guys with long glass never net as sharp a shot with the first frame in a long burst that they might get with the rest...

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Neuro, is this true with all IS lenses? That might imply sports guys with long glass never net as sharp a shot with the first frame in a long burst that they might get with the rest...



Yes, although I think the MkII supertele lenses stabilize faster, and they have a Mode 3 that leaves the VF unstabilized until the shot it taken. 

Many sports shooters (and me, for BIF) are using shutter speeds fast enough that IS is of no benefit anyway.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 17, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> IS data re-run with Neuro's advice in mind. A solid 2s run-up with the IS was used for each shot.
> 
> New IS data below. Same non-IS data as before.
> 
> ...



I use long superteles and shoot sports and I never use IS because my keeper rate is lower than with it off...exactly from what neuro stated. I didn't really think the 300 f/2.8L II IS speed or mode 3 helped vs. the version I lens either. IS certainly has it's places though, for sure.


----------



## tron (Jul 17, 2014)

I got this lens yesterday 

Now I need to go on vacation to test it (2 birds with one stone  )

I just made a few internal test shots and the IS looks promising.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 17, 2014)

tron said:


> I got this lens yesterday
> 
> Now I need to go on vacation to test it (2 birds with one stone  )
> 
> I just made a few internal test shots and the IS looks promising.


Congrats! I'm itching to get back out with mine, too...the weekend is getting closer at least.


----------



## tron (Jul 17, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I got this lens yesterday
> ...


Thanks  I gave my EF24mm 2.8 (non IS) which was not being used and saved 250 Euros of the price (initial 1050) Now I want to see how it performs at the edges since I had sold my 16-35 2.8 version 1 for this very reason (plus the fact that it had coma). 

It is interesting that it is as big and as heavy as my 16-35 2.8 was!


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 17, 2014)

tron said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


I'm certain you'll be pleased with the edge performance and the color and contrast is nearly identical to the 24-70 f/2.8 II based on my testing. The coma tests I've seen so far also show very good, though not perfect performance. I was a bit surprised by the size & weight, too, but I love that compact hood!


----------



## Byte (Jul 18, 2014)

Bonjour,

Some IS example (5D3, handhold, IS, 16mm, Dpp jpeg 3, Standard style, 3000x2000):
1: 1/6s f/22 Iso 50. Polar filter (broken and too much polarized). I was quite out of breath...
2: 1/3s f/4 Iso 400


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 21, 2014)

Here are a couple of additional reviews:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/lenses/129535/1/canon-ef-16-35mm-f-4l-is-usm-review

http://www.camerastuffreview.com/canon-lens-review/test-canon-16-35mm-f4


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 22, 2014)

One of the big guys - LensTip - just completed their review - leaving DxOMark & SLRGear as the remaining major reviewers that haven't published their results:

http://www.lenstip.com/411.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Introduction.html

It's a mostly positive review - they fault the lens on vignetting (I agree) and flare resistance (I disagree based on my testing), but give it high marks across the board.

They also score it highly for coma, so it looks like (other than the aperture), this will be an excellent astrophotography lens, with coma correction very similar to the 24-70 f/2.8 II.


----------



## tron (Jul 22, 2014)

So, the lens has truly negligible coma! What a dilemma. It is f/4. OK, I knew it when I bought it but now wmy 14mm 2/8 II will fight with the 16-35 for their night use ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 22, 2014)

tron said:


> So, the lens has truly negligible coma! What a dilemma. It is f/4. OK, I knew it when I bought it but now wmy 14mm 2/8 II will fight with the 16-35 for their night use ;D


I know f/4 is marginal, but at 16mm you can get away with longer exposures and since buying the TS-E 17 f/4, I've done some searching and have actually seen a lot of great astrophotography done with it on the 5DIII, 6D, and 1D X, so with the right body, I'm sure this lens will work well for night shots as well.


----------



## tron (Jul 23, 2014)

I tried it to day. Practically ZERO coma! But it was dark. I was used to my 14mm 2.8L II even with a little coma. You see I was at my 5D3's limits (ISO 10000, 12800). So I reverted back to it. In fact I have just wondered if 16-35 4L IS why not the TS-E17mm 4L? It will also be able to fix the converging verticals...


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 23, 2014)

tron said:


> I tried it to day. ZERO coma! But it was dark. I was used to my 14mm 2.8L II even with a little coma. You see I was at my 5D3's limits (ISO 10000, 12800). So I reverted back to it. In fact I have just wondered if 16-35 4L IS why not the TS-E17mm 4L? It will also be able to fix the converging verticals...


One reason why not is that the TS-E 17 costs about $1k more than the 16-35 f/4 IS  I got mine as a refurb on sale, so it wasn't as bad for me, but I don't like in a very "dark" area, so I haven't tried my lenses with the stars yet.


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I tried it to day. ZERO coma! But it was dark. I was used to my 14mm 2.8L II even with a little coma. You see I was at my 5D3's limits (ISO 10000, 12800). So I reverted back to it. In fact I have just wondered if 16-35 4L IS why not the TS-E17mm 4L? It will also be able to fix the converging verticals...
> ...


No! I haven't made myself clear. I should have said: I have the TS-E17 so why not use this?
So I used it too and I was able to fix the converging verticals at the expense of a darker photo though (relative to 14mm 2.8 II). The result was very satisfactory. 

I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too. :-[


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 28, 2014)

tron said:


> I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too. :-[



I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24. I have the same mix, and will have to rejigger the kit, but it will be substitutions and in some ways lead to a more compact kit. If it is a 14-24 f/2.8, that will replace the 14 and the Z21. And if it's a 16-35 f/2.8 III, then it'd replace the 16-35 f/4 and the Z21. The Z21's lack of AF limits its usability because I don't have the time do landscapes much, and I find the TS-Es to be more versatile. The Z21's focus confirmation is close to accurate on one side but the confirmed range is too wide and leads to OOF pics on the other...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I am just afraid of the day the new 16-35 2.8 III (or a 14-24) will be announced. I already have 14mm 2.8 II, 16-35 f/4L IS, TS-E17mm f/4L (and a Zeiss 21 2.8 ) and ... I will want/need it since (judging from the 24-70 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS ) it is almost certain that it will be coma corrected too. :-[
> ...



The reasonably high probability of a Canon 12/14-24L in the relatively near future is yet another reason I'll likely put the proceeds of selling my 16-35/2.8 II toward the TS-E 17/4L, rather than getting the 16-35/4L IS.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...


They'll probably announce it at Photokina, just to be cruel...


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking forward to the 16-35 f/2.8 III and/or the 1x-24.
> ...



I forgot how useful it was to have AF in the ultrawide range for a walk-around lens until I swapped the 16-35 f/2.8 II for the f/4 IS. Now, I look for reasons to use it. I use the 24-35mm range on it for about 1/3 of the shots I keep. It may not be as good as the 24-70 II, but it is still excellent and saves on a lot of lens changes and renders in a similarly pleasing way. I'd rather have the f/2.8 over the IS, but for now, I like the 16-35 f/4 IS a lot.

The 12/14-24 will likely not accept screw in filters, but the thing I'd miss most from it is the range up to 35mm for shots with people in them. Given the life stage (young kids), I'm more likely to use a 16-35 than a 12/14-24, although I'd look at the 12/14-24 as a replacement for my 14.


----------



## thedman (Jul 29, 2014)

infared said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say, "never felt a need to take out the Zeiss 21" says a lot about the quality of the zoom. I can't imagine not wanting to take photos with the Zeiss if you have it available at the time. 16-35mm f/4L would have great application as a hking lens to replace a heavier primes kit for landscape. Dragging both the Zeiss and the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (current landscape and astro-landscape kit, with 6D, tripod, filters, etc - 12 pounds?) up the side of a mountain made me aware that I need to do more conditioning.
> ...



Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.

http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2014)

thedman said:


> Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.
> 
> http://www.ddphotos.com/nublet.jpg



Lovely shot. Terrific. Thanks for sharing.

I'm still a rookie on landscape work -- how on earth did you get the trees in the foreground so bright? It looks like those trees are below the line of the sun, and your skyline is sufficiently uneven to make using an ND grad pretty difficult. So how did you get that? What that a composite of a few exposures? Surely you didn't just push up the shadows in post...

- A


----------



## thedman (Jul 29, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> thedman said:
> 
> 
> > Another one with the 16-35... I was really happy with the corner sharpness on this one. Lots of detail in the trees.
> ...



Thanks! You're right about the composite - it's one shot for the ground and one for the sky. The trees in the middle aren't as below the horizon as it looks... they're kind of coming up the hillside at me. The very tops of them were just getting touched by a bit of sun. Add a bit of curves and you have bright trees.


----------



## VitC (Jul 29, 2014)

I'm really pleased by the improved edge image quality over the 17-40, this means no more worries when shooting larger groups. What I noticed though is that the lens attracted more dust on the front element than any of the other L lenses. What changed in the coating? Or is it just me?


----------



## tron (Jul 30, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...


Very cruel considering I have just bought the f/4 IS version. Add to that the fact that bought 16-35 2.8L a few months/one year before the 16-35 2.8L II and you have the complete picture! ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



+1 on 16-35 over 14-24 for the ability to front filter. 2mm wider is admittedly non-trivial on the UWA end of things, but bulbous front elements are a non-starter for me.

(And yes: that's a +1 for the 16-35 vs. something that _we have no credible evidence that it exists_. Such is the allure of the mythical 14-24, sheesh.)

- A


----------



## tron (Jul 30, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


+1 too. A 16-35 2.8 with sharp corners and no coma would be even more useful than my 14 2.8 II for astrophotography since there are cases where I could do with the more protective hood of 16-35 vs the small built in hood in 14 2.8 II combined with a bulbuous front element which makes it prone to flare from sideways light.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2014)

Roger at LR carved up one for all to see:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/of-course-we-took-one-apart

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 14, 2014)

And the SLRGear is finally in: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1712/cat/11

I think that leaves DxOMark as the only major reviewer left.


----------



## candc (Aug 15, 2014)

flash bulletin. the canon 16-35 f/4 is pretty good. i picked mine up from the ups service center (adorama requires in person sig nowadays).

the first picture i took was in the parking lot and it was love at first sight. 

ups parking lots are not the most scenic of locals but hey, when you have sharpness, contrast, and color like that?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 15, 2014)

Sigma: 14-24 F/4 OS is rumored for Photokina...


----------



## msm (Aug 20, 2014)

thedman said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > thedman said:
> ...



Didn't see this before now, but I too want to say great shot!

Good example of what can be done when people go out and use their camera to do what it can do instead of running to forums to complain about what it can't do.


----------



## bosshog7_2000 (Aug 26, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> And now Photozone joins the conversation -- and this spurs an interesting conversation:
> http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1
> 
> I'm glad we know have sharpness numbers to compare, because it speak to a concern of mine. I am reading that everyone who uses this lens finds it a sharpness improvement over the 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L, especially in the corners.
> ...



I noticed the same thing and this is why I will not buy the new 16-35mm f4. For my purposes, the 17-40mm is just as good at the widest setting and f11 which is where I do all of my landscape work.


----------



## bosshog7_2000 (Aug 26, 2014)

dilbert said:


> bosshog7_2000 said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Once again...you like to mettle with the facts. The fact is...at f11 you will be hard pressed to see ANY improvement in a landscape photo with the 16-35mm f4 over a 17-40. So, if you are saying the 17-40 is garbage then why waste your money on a new 16-35 f4 for landscape work?? 

By the way, I have many shots with the 17-40 on my flickr page, check them out. 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 10, 2014)

...and the last of the major reviews is in:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF16-35mm-F4L-IS-USM-lens-review-Canon-s-best-wide-angle-zoom-yet

*Conclusion*

Adding stabilization in a lens like this is targeting videographers more than stills photographers, where the wide field of view and steadying effect can be put to good use, but it’s a welcome addition all the same. The imaging performance is good, very good in fact, but it’s not without some shortcomings, particularly at the longer end where field curvature provides some unexpected results. Once those are understood and either avoided or worked around, the lens can be a very satisfying performer and at $1,199 this new model doesn’t seem over priced.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 10, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> ...and the last of the major reviews is in:
> 
> http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF16-35mm-F4L-IS-USM-lens-review-Canon-s-best-wide-angle-zoom-yet
> 
> ...



But to DXO, we're still on the overall 'poor' end of the scale. _If the sensor only had more pixels, this lens would score higher..._ Ridiculous.

Those same jokers gave the new 85mm Otus a score of 38 for Canon and a score of 49 for Nikon based solely on the D800/800E/810's higher resolving power. Rubbish.

- A


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Sep 11, 2014)

I'm also interested in the 17-40 performance in the f8-16 range as I like its price (can get an almost new one for $600 vs the $1200 plus tax of the 16-35). I also prefer lighter and smaller, and I have steady hands (or a tripod). Any reason I shouldn't buy it?


----------



## Khalai (Sep 11, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> I'm also interested in the 17-40 performance in the f8-16 range as I like its price (can get an almost new one for $600 vs the $1200 plus tax of the 16-35). I also prefer lighter and smaller, and I have steady hands (or a tripod). Any reason I shouldn't buy it?



I've had 17-40L for about three years. That lens is ofter underrated for its soft corners at wide open 17mm end. But at f/8-f/11, those corners are acceptable. The new 16-35L is not just about sharpness, but also about microcontrast and colours. It's actually very comparable to the 24-70/2.8L II in terms of "punchiness"  I barely have to postprocess the files with that lens, 17-40L always needed some more to get to that impactful look.


----------



## Phenix205 (Sep 11, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > ...and the last of the major reviews is in:
> ...


+1. The tests by lensrentals.com are more objective and representative than any other tests considering their larger sample size, and Roger uses some cool instruments that the DxO guys probably never heard of.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 11, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Mr_Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > I'm also interested in the 17-40 performance in the f8-16 range as I like its price (can get an almost new one for $600 vs the $1200 plus tax of the 16-35). I also prefer lighter and smaller, and I have steady hands (or a tripod). Any reason I shouldn't buy it?
> ...


Exactly. The contrast and color of the 16-35 f/4 IS and 24-70 f/2.8 II are exceptional and why many have described the 24-70 f/2.8 II as being like a Prime. The 16-35 f/4 IS photos have that exact same character. This is visible in the comparison shots I've taken and these lenses top the TS-E 17 & 24 in that regard, which is saying a lot. The lack of CA also makes a big difference for those shooting landscapes and architecture with intricate detail (leaves & branches, windows, bricks, etc.) when you process the photos.


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Sep 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Mr_Canuck said:
> ...



These are important factors. I have the Voigtlander 20, and it's a great little lens but I do have to stop it down and then I have to be careful of field curvature but I've gotten great shots. I think if I'm going to invest in the convenience of a zoom, and also want best possible quality, I will hold out for the 16-35.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 12, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> +1. The tests by lensrentals.com are more objective and representative than any other tests considering their larger sample size, and Roger uses some cool instruments that the DxO guys probably never heard of.



Of course, I trust Roger Cicala more than anyone. He has better tools and widely is accepted as a very neutral opinion, bias-free guy. 

But I do miss the basic old test reports there. I really liked his simple center, border, corner sharpness results. The new lens-only system is impressive, but it's two levels deeper information than I can quickly process. I'm concerned that LR will turn into a very cool but not-very-accessible place for optics nerds to get lost in minutiae.

- A


----------



## NancyP (Sep 12, 2014)

Yeah, Roger has the best toys, without a doubt. Great second career for an anesthesiologist.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 18, 2014)

There is a dramatic difference between the flare shown on the TDP site and the Lenstip site. I would not expect that much variation between different copies of this lens. I have noted Mackguyver's flare observation; has anyone else checked flare?


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 18, 2014)

chrysoberyl said:


> There is a dramatic difference between the flare shown on the TDP site and the Lenstip site. I would not expect that much variation between different copies of this lens. I have noted Mackguyver's flare observation; has anyone else checked flare?


I noticed that, too, and was quite surprised by their results. As I have posted before, I find the flare resistance to be far better than the f/2.8 II lens. I have taken a number of other backlit shots since my original test and I stand by that claim. I'm curious to hear what others think, too, though.


----------



## candc (Sep 18, 2014)

i haven't noticed flaring as a problem with the lens. you will get it if you shoot directly into the midday sun but sometimes you want that. this one shows it but i think its probably more due to the smeared polarizer i had on the lens than the lens itself


----------



## mwh1964 (Sep 25, 2014)

It is an amazing lens no doubt. I would suggest getting it over the older lenses. I did but again I upgraded from the venerable 20-35.


----------

