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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 4, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/06/canon-ef-16-35-f4l-is-real-world-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/2014/06/canon-ef-16-35-f4l-is-real-world-sample-images/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>*UPDATE*

</strong>CR reader John has reposted the images from early today, this time processed to his liking. You can <strong><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnctharp/sets/72157644599937910/" target="_blank">check them out on his Flickr page</a></strong>.</p>
<p><strong>Original Post</strong>

A reader of our site was lucky enough to play around with the <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">soon-to-be-released Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS</a> at a Canon roadshow in Zurich recently. He was kind enough to post full resolution JPG files, as well as the RAW files.</p>
<p>I have put the JPG files on my <strong><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157644998644901/" target="_blank">flickr account for you to view</a></strong>. The images were taken using the Canon EOS 6D.</p>
<p>Luigi does say “<em><span style="color: #000000;">As I know that some of you are waiting for real world pictures, I have published some of the images. Don’t expect anything artistic but just pictures taken while walking around the Prime Tower building in Zurich with difficult light (strong building shadows with pieces of bright sky in the frame) and only 20 min time.”</span></em></p>
<p>So no need to be too critical of the images, but they do give you a great idea of corner performance, a long time weakness of the Canon wide angle zooms. You can download the RAW files from the login provided on the <strong><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3679847#forum-post-53790356" target="_blank">original thread at DPReview</a></strong>.</p>
<p><strong>Preorder the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS $1199:</strong> <a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K8942SO/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K8942SO&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=6AVWEQKBYJ7TXPHU" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <strong><a style="color: #900000;" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051475-USA/canon_9518b002_ef_16_35mm_f_4l_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a></strong> | <a style="color: #900000;" 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>
```


----------



## bvukich (Jun 4, 2014)

Just looking at the JPEGs, that's not too shabby. Distortion looks better than the 17-40L at every FL. Sharpness at 16mm f/4 is good until the very extreme corners, and with very minimal vignetting.


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 4, 2014)

Yes, I've looked at the samples... definitely hints that this EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM will be a great lens.
I've also seem some of the new EF-S 10-18mm IS STM will be a decent budget for APS-C cameras too!

Well done CANON! 

Paul


----------



## darkmavis (Jun 4, 2014)

Honestly I'm not too convinced about the corners, they just look slightly better than the 17-40 to me, but still my old Sigma 10-20 for APS-C was way better than any of these lenses


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 4, 2014)

These posts aren't helping me stay patient as I wait for my copy


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> These posts aren't helping me stay patient as I wait for my copy



I was thinking about holiday rebates... :


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 4, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > These posts aren't helping me stay patient as I wait for my copy
> ...


I'd be shocked if it's included in this year's rebates. In the past, Canon has usually excluded new lenses from rebates for the first year - at least with the 24-70 II & 70-200 IS II and a few others if memory serves.


----------



## candyman (Jun 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> These posts aren't helping me stay patient as I wait for my copy




I hear you....waiting too :


----------



## sanj (Jun 4, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > These posts aren't helping me stay patient as I wait for my copy
> ...


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Jun 4, 2014)

Thank you for the pics and review! I have been looking at this lens with great anticipation.

It seems like a real solid performer. There is the 16-35mm f2.8L II that has been a staple for many photographers. But it approaches the $2000 which puts it out of the hands of many. There are some great alternatives for half the price. But you know there are trade-offs.

I just checked with B&H and right now, the 16-35mm f2.8L II is only $300 more with their MIR over the f4. That makes it a much tougher sell. Without the sale, it's a $500 difference. If you have a Canon 5D MKIII or better, f4 is much more competitive. Unless you shoot in dark areas often or have mediocre ISO performance, f4 could be a great option.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 4, 2014)

Mine's supposed to ship from Canon via Fed Ex on the 27th, so I should have it by the fourth of July. Yippee! I even bought a new B+W clear XS-Pro filter for it when I could just have used the "old" (still like new) F Pro filter that's currently on my 17-40. I guess I'll sell the lens with the filter. This GAS stuff is contagious. I hope the lens performs as well as I expect so I can also sell my Tokina AT-X 16-28 f/2.8 FX. I don't think I'll need 2.8 often enough to justify both lenses, and lord knows I already have enough overlaps in my assortment of lenses.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 4, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> These posts aren't helping me stay patient as I wait for my copy



I thought you posted that you had all the lenses you would ever need ;D


----------



## JonAustin (Jun 5, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > These posts aren't helping me stay patient as I wait for my copy
> ...



Needing ≠ Wanting.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 5, 2014)

Does anyone know when this lens is expected on the shop shelves?


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 5, 2014)

wsmith96 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > These posts aren't helping me stay patient as I wait for my copy
> ...


I did put a caveat in there about upgrading, and alas, the 16-35 f/2.8 II is on the auction block of eBay as I type this. Yes, I realize that some don't see it as an upgrade, but for someone who has pretty much never used f/2.8 on the 16-35 and doesn't use wide angles for sports, the new lens is a much better fit for my uses. The only catch is that I am blown away by the TS-E 17's sharpness making me question my need for this lens. It's possible I have a lousy 16-35 and a brilliant 17, but my 17 absolutely destroys my 16-35 (sharpness, CA, flare resistance, etc.), even when tilted & shifted. The 17 isn't the most practical lens in terms of weatherproofness, size, or being a prime, which is where I see this new zoom fitting into my line up. My 16-35 won't be missed.


----------



## candyman (Jun 5, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Does anyone know when this lens is expected on the shop shelves?




My pre-order says expected 30 June
But, it says *expected*


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I did put a caveat in there about upgrading, and alas, the 16-35 f/2.8 II is on the auction block of eBay as I type this. Yes, I realize that some don't see it as an upgrade, but for someone who has pretty much never used f/2.8 on the 16-35 and doesn't use wide angles for sports, the new lens is a much better fit for my uses. The only catch is that I am blown away by the TS-E 17's sharpness making me question my need for this lens. It's possible I have a lousy 16-35 and a brilliant 17, but my 17 absolutely destroys my 16-35 (sharpness, CA, flare resistance, etc.), even when tilted & shifted. The 17 isn't the most practical lens in terms of weatherproofness, size, or being a prime, which is where I see this new zoom fitting into my line up. My 16-35 won't be missed.



Sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II, and lo and behold, I could have used it during the Memorial Day parade. I didn't use the 16-35 II much, but it came in handy when I wanted to use it. IQ is not among its greatest strengths but AF and its focal length range are. I only used it for travel situations; for all else, I opted for the primes.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 5, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I did put a caveat in there about upgrading, and alas, the 16-35 f/2.8 II is on the auction block of eBay as I type this. Yes, I realize that some don't see it as an upgrade, but for someone who has pretty much never used f/2.8 on the 16-35 and doesn't use wide angles for sports, the new lens is a much better fit for my uses. The only catch is that I am blown away by the TS-E 17's sharpness making me question my need for this lens. It's possible I have a lousy 16-35 and a brilliant 17, but my 17 absolutely destroys my 16-35 (sharpness, CA, flare resistance, etc.), even when tilted & shifted. The 17 isn't the most practical lens in terms of weatherproofness, size, or being a prime, which is where I see this new zoom fitting into my line up. My 16-35 won't be missed.
> ...


That's happened to me, too, or more so, happens whenever I leave a lens at home . I think the 16-35 focal length is really versatile, too, and can't wait for the new lens. And like you, I'm sure I'll wish I had it over the next few weeks while we wait for the lens to ship


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 5, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I did put a caveat in there about upgrading, and alas, the 16-35 f/2.8 II is on the auction block of eBay as I type this. Yes, I realize that some don't see it as an upgrade, but for someone who has pretty much never used f/2.8 on the 16-35 and doesn't use wide angles for sports, the new lens is a much better fit for my uses. The only catch is that I am blown away by the TS-E 17's sharpness making me question my need for this lens. It's possible I have a lousy 16-35 and a brilliant 17, but my 17 absolutely destroys my 16-35 (sharpness, CA, flare resistance, etc.), even when tilted & shifted. The 17 isn't the most practical lens in terms of weatherproofness, size, or being a prime, which is where I see this new zoom fitting into my line up. My 16-35 won't be missed.
> ...



The S/H value of the 16-35IIL isn't going to tumble for quite a while. There's still a lot of users who need the f2.8 option. New sales might plummet though, but generally the S/H price stays stable. My advice was to buy the new one outright, compared them and then sell the f2.8....but I guess this advice is a little late now!


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 5, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> My advice was to buy the new one outright, compared them and then sell the f2.8....but I guess this advice is a little late now!


That was my plan, too, but I thought I'd go ahead and get my lens out there before eBay is saturated with them. With 3 days left in the auction, my lens is at $1085 with 12 watchers, so I think I've timed it well. Also, when I get the new lens, I'd rather be using it instead of shooting comparison photos . If the lens isn't amazing, I'll just return it and use my TS-E 17 until the 14-24 f/2.8 or whatever comes out. 

P.S. Okay, I admit that I might have to indulge in a few 16-35 f/4 IS vs. TS-E 17 f/4 comparisons...


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 5, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > My advice was to buy the new one outright, compared them and then sell the f2.8....but I guess this advice is a little late now!
> ...



The 16-35L f/2.8 II market has softened quite a bit already. I got mine used about 2 years ago for about 1200 (lens, caps and hood only) when most of used copies were going for 1300, and I sold mine on eBay for 1150 (even with 30+ watchers). I tracked a few others before selling mine and they were going in the 1150-1250 (with box, pouch, etc.) range unless scammers were involved (i.e. 0 feedback accounts bidding the prices up).

Ideally, I think I would have preferred a 16-35 f/2.8 III to the 16-35 f/4 IS if it is at least as good as the 16-35 f/4 IS's MTFs. I tried the 24, 28 and 35 IS, and I don't find the IS as useful at these shorter focal lengths, but the 16-35 f/4 IS looks so much better than the 16-35 II that I'm switching now and am willing to lose the 10-20% of the price until the 16-35 f/2.8 II's replacement comes to market, whenever that may be.

Of the 10+ lens I have bought, this is the first that I've ever ordered before it was widely available and reviews were already out. I blame the Canon store's error in giving 125 off the new lens price for my hastiness/impulsiveness. ;D

@GMCPhotographics: I agree that the used market prices for the 16-35 II won't change much now. I've been considering selling the 16-35 II for months, especially after snagging a refurbed Zeiss 21. If canon can design the 16-35 f/2.8 III as good as the 16-35 f/4 IS with good coma control wide open, then I'll be looking to the 16-35 f/2.8 III to replace both the 16-35 and the Zeiss 21.

It's too bad Canon couldn't stretch the 16-35 f/4 IS to be a 16-40 design. All this typing to distinguish between the 16-35 f/2.8, 16-35 f/2.8 II, 16-35 f/4 IS and the 16-35 f/2.8 II replacement (III?) is going to be a pain!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 9, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


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



The 17-40L was expanded at the long end so that it could perform two specific roles. An ultra wide zoom for the full framers and die hard film users. Full frame digital users were very few in those days when this lens was released. The other crowd was the other 99.9% of Canon DSLR users who were mostly 1.6x crop users. This lens predates the EF-s mount. It was envisioned as a cost effective standard lens range for those users (28-65mm effective). The only other option was the very expensive 16-35L and out of the pocket for most users....so much has changed! In those days, Canon saw the 1.6x crop as a temporary thing and had a plan to make their entire range full frame within 10 years. When Canon saw that many users liked the 1.6x crop, they backtracked and started to develop the ef-s mount and lenses. So the long term future of the 17-40L has always been questionable. I'm sure Canon has thought...hmmm, 17-40 f4L needs replacing and it's original mandate is no longer valid....so lets start with a blank sheet of paper...an ultra wide f4 lens...lets make it a 16-35mm with an IS unit....yeah that'll work well.


----------

