# First Looks at Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens Image Quality



## mackguyver (Jun 26, 2014)

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

Looks good to me at first glance - seems like less CA and sharper corners than the older lenses.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 26, 2014)

It compares pretty well to the 24L at 2.8 and wider. Not too shabby for a zoom!


----------



## Ruined (Jun 26, 2014)

Re: 16-35mm f/4 IS vs 16-35mm f/2.8 II

From these tests, it looks like
* At f/2.8, the 16-35 II is better because the 16-35 f/4 IS can't do it.

* The 16-35 f/4L IS USM is superior from f/4 through f/8, though at f/8 the difference between the two gets significantly smaller. 

* At f/11, the two appear close in sharpness, but the 16-35 f/4 squeaks out a win with just a tad better sharpness and significantly less CA.




Overall, the 16-35 f/4L IS appears to be the superior landscape lens; that being said, the biggest difference appears to be from f/4 - f/8; at f/11, the 16-35 f/2.8 II is quite close.

Canon did a great job on updating the 17-40 with this lens. 

As I stated in other threads, I am holding on to my 16-35 II for f/2.8 at events, especially seeing how close the two are at f/11, where I commonly shoot landscape. But, if you are primarily a landscape photographer the 16-35mm f/4 IS looks like a must have.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> From the-digital-picture:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9939
> 
> Looks good to me at first glance - seems like less CA and sharper corners than the older lenses.



Not sure what to think, since he gets the corners trickier to pull off on a flat, close target at 35mm than at 24mm or 16mm, the exact opposite result I'm getting. Not sure if it's procedure of lens variation. For whatever reason, my own findings match photozone.de results far more than TDP or DxO.


----------



## tomscott (Jun 27, 2014)

In the real world the very small sharpness boost of the 16-35mm F4 will not be noticeable compared to the 16-35mm F2.8 and it can't do F2.8. IS is also a bit of a gimmick at this focal range, might save a few ISO stops tho if your shooting handheld. Also if your shooting landscape you will be shooting F8-F16 there isn't really much difference, little more CA on the 2.8 but easily sorted in post.

So if your a F2.8 II owner I wouldn't be swapping.

Compared to the 17-40mm its a fairly big upgrade but then again currently retailing in the UK at £629 and the 16-35mm F4 IS at £1299 and the 16-35mm II F2.8 at £1214 (all jessops prices) the F4 is more expensive than both and and double the 17-40mm.

Especially when you can find good 17-40mm on the used market at £4-450 doesn't seem a worthwhile upgrade atm and the 16-35mm F2.8 II would be where I would go if I didn't have a WA.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 27, 2014)

tomscott said:


> So if your a F2.8 II owner I wouldn't be swapping.


Kinda regret selling my 2.8 II now, particularly because the distortion looks worse, and it's not a lot sharper. I am looking forward to the smaller hood and I always have my TS-E 17 & 24s for architectural stuff. I'm also curious to see what IS does for me in practice. For travel, I think it will be really nice. I'll have it on Monday...


----------



## infared (Jun 27, 2014)

Definitely not running out to buy this lens, as I have the 16-35mm f/2.8II. Pretty much a wash.
Now, if it was a super-tight 14-24mm f/2.8 IS that kept pace with the Nikkor...it may be a different story.
The new canon looks like a great lens though, and is priced more reasonably upon release than most of Canon's more recent releases. We can probably thank Sigma for that! LOL. (My next lens will most likely be the Sigma 50mm Art, when they become readily available). :


----------



## Ruined (Jun 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > So if your a F2.8 II owner I wouldn't be swapping.
> ...



I'm not sure its really worth regretting, I mean you said you didn't use it at 2.8 anyway and its not like this new lens is worse at landscapes - it is still better, just not as dramatically as the MTFs suggested. On the other hand, the bulk of those improvements are at f4-f8 which is generally just a bit more wide open than most landscapers shoot to max DOF. f/11 seems to be very popular for landscapes and aside from the CA it is almost a tie (the f/4 is ever so slightly sharper in the mid frame). Still, if you didn't use 2.8 you should get some improvements out of this lens. Worse comes to worse you can always return the f/4 lens and buy a used 16-35 II for probably the same price you sold yours, but I am not sure that is the best move - depends on whether you want 2.8. Also, this is my subjective opinion, but I find the 14-pointed sunstars of the 16-35 f/2.8L II more realistic and less distracting than the 18-pointed sunstars of the 16-35 f/4L IS. 18 points of light just looks a bit too busy and almost cartoonish to me.

So, while it may not be the lens that moves heaven and earth as the MTF suggested, for your usage it sounds like it will be an upgrade, albeit a smaller one than expected.

Regarding IS, I have done tests with the 24 IS, 28 IS and 35 IS at slow shutter speeds and was disappointed in the results - compared to say the 70-200 IS II where IS makes a massive difference. Namely, IS on the wide angles did not seem nearly as effective as on tele lenses (less stops of effectiveness) and it was better to just use a tripod for max sharpness at such slow shutters. There were less pictures that were garbage when IS was engaged with super slow shutter, but the "keepers" were not nearly as sharp as they would have been out of a 70-200 with a similar # of stops (or on a tripod) to the extent that I did not find it particularly useful outside of video.

Also keep in mind this is only one review and if you look at the 50L results from the same site you will see they look dreadful. So it is probably worth waiting to see more reviews and real life shots.

If you ever pick up the 16-35 II again there is a trick to storing the hood. Don't flip it in storage position, take it off entirely and place it vertically next to the lens  I also noticed the hood goes on smoother if you grip it by the short fins instead of the long fins, likely as the leverage of the latter deform the hood slightly when twisting.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 27, 2014)

Ruined said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > tomscott said:
> ...


I'm sure you're right, and perhaps I had my hopes up a little too high. It is just one copy and one review, so we'll what others say, and perhaps some of the less measurable qualities will be impressive as well. I never shot at f/2.8 so it's not a big deal, but I did take a loss on the sale, my first for a Canon lens, so that stings a bit.

I'm not surprised to hear that about IS for wide angles and felt the same way comparing the 70-200 IS lenses vs. the 800 f/5.6. It seemed like it was unbelievably good on the 800 in comparison! The jury is out on the lens, but I know the Nikon competitor is one of their better sellers. I'm just anxious to try it out.

As for the lens hood on the 16-35 f/2.8 II, I have one bag where I could reverse it and it would actually overlap the padding, but otherwise I would do as you say or just stick it in another pocket. The f/4 IS hood looks a lot like the 24-70 II hood and I love that new design.

Also, I know DxO is currently testing the lens and I'm sure others are too, so it should be interesting to see the results. I'll be using it alongside my TS-E 17 (which seems like a _really _sharp copy) next week and I'll share my impressions and photos. No test charts, just real shots


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 27, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Re: 16-35mm f/4 IS vs 16-35mm f/2.8 II
> 
> From these tests, it looks like
> * At f/2.8, the 16-35 II is better because the 16-35 f/4 IS can't do it.
> ...



i'm 100% in agreement although i do find i'm using the 11-22 IS on the M alot more for wide stuff where i dont need f2.8 then i have the 50 art on the 5d3 this covers most stuff if i need longer i'll throw the 70-200 on either body or the 135 depends what i have at a particular time


----------



## ejenner (Jun 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> From the-digital-picture:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=9939
> 
> Looks good to me at first glance - seems like less CA and sharper corners than the older lenses.



Just got mine today. It's much closer in IQ to the TS-E 17mm than the 17-40 at the wide end. It's hard to see in the test chart, but with foliage, grass and trees the improvements in the corners are more noticeable. Also with the CA, taking a backlit tree for a test, it has about 1/4 of the CA of the 17-40. Better than it looks in that test chart.

Compared to the TSE17mm at the wide end it has a bit more CA and at f8/f11 maybe just a tad less sharp around the edges, but hard to see at even 100% crop. I don't really use these lenses more open than f8, but it totally stomps on the 17-40 wider than f8 if shooting brick walls at f4 is your thing. My 16-35 copy is much better in the corners than my 17-40 at f8 and still quite a bit better at f11. The IQ of the 16-35 f4 OTOH hardly changes between f8 and f11 across the frame.

Basically no reason to get the TSE17 if you just want something wide and sharper than the 17-40. 

Hard for me to quantify, but it looks to have about the same amount of distortion as the 17-40.

But of course there is no panacea to getting good photos. I'm made plenty of nice prints with the 17-40, so it's not going to suddenly make your landscapes shine if they were crap before. I usually need to stop down to f11-f16 for DOF with UWA lenses, and this isn't going to change that.

The worst thing? The moving front element. Even though it moves within the barrel, it basically moves - they just built the barrel long enough to cover it. If you use a filter it will seem like a non-issue. If you don't, then it might suck in some dirt. BTW, it is most retracted at 24mm.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 27, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > From the-digital-picture:
> ...



I couldn't find anything either on photozone website or DxO website.
I just pull the trigger and bought the 16-35mm f4L IS and sold my already excellent 16-35mm f2.8L II. Reasons: I am not an action, wedding, or event photographer and when I need to use fast zoom lenses I use my 24-70mm f2.8L and 70-200mm f2.8L IS II or prime lenses. My need for UWA lenses are basically for landscape photography and some wide angle portraits so, primarily IQ is my priority in UWA over speed.
One more advantage, the new 16-35mm f4L IS also share 77mm filters with my other lenses


----------



## tomscott (Jun 27, 2014)

One of the main factors for me was F2.8 for night star landscape, as you can open the shutter longer and keep the stars sharp at 16mm, and its a zoom which I can also use for landscape and weddings. The 16-35mm doesn't do that… The F2.8 is very useful and if you haven't used it for that reason give it a go it will make you want to keep it, its very useful in a way the 16-35mm F4 isn't.


----------



## waelelgendy (Jun 27, 2014)

I think this lens is a good update for the current 17-40. It wasn't intended by Canon to replace its current high end UWA 16-35L f/2.8 II, which explains why the new f/4 IS lens is not blowing the f/2.8 II out of the water. If I was an owner of the f/2.8 II, I won't sell it for the new f/4 IS lens, but if I was in the market for a good UWA landscape lens, or an owner of the current 17-40 looking for better IQ, I would highly consider this new f/4 IS lens for its overall IQ, IS, and 77mm filter thread.

Apart from that, this lens gives good indication that the f/2.8 II's replacement can very well compete with Nikon's 14-24 f/2.8 lens. Choosing the 16-35mm focal length for the f/4 IS lens also may tell that the new UWA f/2.8 zoom lens would go for a new focal length range, might be the 14-24mm.


----------



## Ruined (Jun 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I'm sure you're right, and perhaps I had my hopes up a little too high. It is just one copy and one review, so we'll what others say, and perhaps some of the less measurable qualities will be impressive as well. I never shot at f/2.8 so it's not a big deal, but I did take a loss on the sale, my first for a Canon lens, so that stings a bit.



Well if you never shot at f/2.8 and don't plan to, then I think aside from price you made the right move. I am surprised you took a loss as the 16-35 II appears to be going for ~$1300+ on eBay which is greater than the 16-35 f/4 IS' MSRP. Also, as you know by jumping into the game on day one you automatically pay 10-15% more for the lens than if you waited 6 months, which is simply the early adopter tax. And of course if you trade to camera store you trade profit for convenience.

The only thing I'd say about the 16-35 II for landscape and I've know I've said it before, is that I greatly prefer the 14 point sunstars to the 18 point sunstars in the f/4 IS. Even if I were a landscape shooter it bothers me enough that I might not have purchased the f/4 IS. I know this is totally subjective though and some like the 18 point better than 14 point or don't care either way, but for me it just sticks out and bothers me (similar to angular bokeh balls)


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 27, 2014)

Ruined said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you're right, and perhaps I had my hopes up a little too high. It is just one copy and one review, so we'll what others say, and perhaps some of the less measurable qualities will be impressive as well. I never shot at f/2.8 so it's not a big deal, but I did take a loss on the sale, my first for a Canon lens, so that stings a bit.
> ...


Alas, I lost money on the f/2.8 II because I bought it at one of its highest prices in years - no rebates or anything at the time. I needed the lens for a shoot when I bought it so technically it paid for itself, but I have sold every other Canon lens for the price I paid or more. Yes I have plenty left over to cover the f/4 IS, but I don't like to lose money, even if it's just in principle vs. reality. A 3 year rental would have cost me how much?

On the sunstars - I have been shooting with the 24-70 f/2.8 II for a while now and don't find the 9-bladed aperture to be an issue even at 70mm. I'm not sure I have a strong preference either way - sometimes the spiky 9-bladed sunstars are a nice effect - like for nightime cityscapes, and sometimes they are odd and distracting, but sometimes the softer 8-bladed sunstars just look odd and smeared. Obviously the aperture makes a big difference, too, so there is some control. And if you think about it, at the 16-35mm focal length, the sun is never going to be very big in the frame so I don't think it will be much of an issue.

Also, regarding Tom's point about astrophotography, the f/2.8 II like all older Canon zooms and most primes has terrible coma in the corners. The 24-70 f/2.8 II does not and it's possible that the f/4 IS won't either. Combine that with the 5DIII or 1DX and the ISO can make up for the aperture, at least in good conditions.

ejenner, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the lens and how it compares to the TS-E 17. I looked at the distortion charts on TDP and the 17mm seems much less distorted, at least in the neutral position. If the f/4 IS is as sharp as the 17mm, I'll be a very happy man


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 27, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Alas, I lost money on the f/2.8 II because I bought it at one of its highest prices in years - no rebates or anything at the time. I needed the lens for a shoot when I bought it so technically it paid for itself, but I have sold every other Canon lens for the price I paid or more. Yes I have plenty left over to cover the f/4 IS, but I don't like to lose money, even if it's just in principle vs. reality. A 3 year rental would have cost me how much?
> 
> On the sunstars - I have been shooting with the 24-70 f/2.8 II for a while now and don't find the 9-bladed aperture to be an issue even at 70mm. I'm not sure I have a strong preference either way - sometimes the spiky 9-bladed sunstars are a nice effect - like for nightime cityscapes, and sometimes they are odd and distracting, but sometimes the softer 8-bladed sunstars just look odd and smeared. Obviously the aperture makes a big difference, too, so there is some control. And if you think about it, at the 16-35mm focal length, the sun is never going to be very big in the frame so I don't think it will be much of an issue.
> 
> ...



I've lost money on the 3 lenses I've bought and sold: about 200 on the 17-55, about 50 on the 10-22 and about 150 on the 16-35 II. The one that really surprised me was how soft the market the 16-35 II had become. When I bought it, it sold used for 1300, but I got mine for about 1200. I sold it for close to that, but the loss is mainly from fees. The only auctions that I saw go for much more than 1200 were usually scammers with no feedback scores.

The one stop difference compared to the 16-35 II won't matter as much to me or those that have faster primes. With f/1.4 options at 24 and 35, you lose on focal length versatility, but the two stops is more signifcant than the 1 stop difference compared to the 16-35II.

It's true that IS is not as effective at shorter FLs, but I'd still rather have it than not. It helps when the shutter speed gets as slow as 1/2 second, which is handy for travel (i.e. museums, blurring water flow minimally). It looks like it'll be an ideal travel lens. I love the idea of a 16-35 III that is as good if not better optically than the 16-35 f/4 IS, but that is not a option now.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 27, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Alas, I lost money on the f/2.8 II because I bought it at one of its highest prices in years - no rebates or anything at the time. I needed the lens for a shoot when I bought it so technically it paid for itself, but I have sold every other Canon lens for the price I paid or more. Yes I have plenty left over to cover the f/4 IS, but I don't like to lose money, even if it's just in principle vs. reality. A 3 year rental would have cost me how much?
> ...


I paid $1589 for my 16-35, so I lost about $300 after fees (it was in mint condition and sold high), which is around the same as a 60 day rental, so I try to look at it that way. I have the 24-70 II, 24L II, and 50L so I can live with the f/4 as well, and I agree that it should be a great travel lens.


----------



## mustafaakarsu (Jun 28, 2014)

tomscott said:


> One of the main factors for me was F2.8 for night star landscape, as you can open the shutter longer and keep the stars sharp at 16mm, and its a zoom which I can also use for landscape and weddings. The 16-35mm doesn't do that… The F2.8 is very useful and if you haven't used it for that reason give it a go it will make you want to keep it, its very useful in a way the 16-35mm F4 isn't.



Excuse my lack of knowledge. 
How could it make too much effect simply increasing ISO from 100 to 200, why not shoot with a f/4 lens in ISO 200?


----------



## hsbn (Jun 28, 2014)

mustafaakarsu said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > One of the main factors for me was F2.8 for night star landscape, as you can open the shutter longer and keep the stars sharp at 16mm, and its a zoom which I can also use for landscape and weddings. The 16-35mm doesn't do that… The F2.8 is very useful and if you haven't used it for that reason give it a go it will make you want to keep it, its very useful in a way the 16-35mm F4 isn't.
> ...


From ISO 100 to ISO 200 is not much; but for capturing stars as a point, people normally use ISO3200 or ISO6400 already. So losing 1 stop is a big deal. Now you'll have to shoot at ISO12800 which maybe be too much noise to get good image.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Jun 28, 2014)

You can still shoot stars with this lens at lower ISO if you use good technique. I got some star photos last night at f4 ISO 800 that turned out good. Brush up on technique, and you don't have to go out to expanded ISOs and get tons of noise.


----------



## timcz (Jun 28, 2014)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

The sharpness in the corners at f8 and f11 compared to my 2.8 version is enough for me to want to buy this, which I did. However, still waiting for my pre-order to come through.


----------



## skybc (Jun 28, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> You can still shoot stars with this lens at lower ISO if you use good technique. I got some star photos last night at f4 ISO 800 that turned out good. Brush up on technique, and you don't have to go out to expanded ISOs and get tons of noise.



I am looking forward to see how it pans out for star shots (milky way etc). Would you mind posting a few? How is the coma?


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 28, 2014)

There are some lenses which preserve good resale value, while others you lose a lot due to different reasons, specially variations in the market prices. I got my f2.8L II, mint condition second hand, for $1,200 and managed to sell it after 1 year for the same. It was just enough to finance my new f4 IS. Sometimes market is good and sometimes bad.


----------



## Otter (Jun 28, 2014)

Looking at the tests from the 2.8 vs the 4.0 at F11, the 4.0 definitely looks sharper. Especially around mid-frame, as well as the corners. I think if you're into landscape photography, it's a definite upgrade from the II 2.8.

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


----------



## markko (Jun 28, 2014)

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Mark.

The four lenses:






The wall:





One of the other random pictures:


----------

