# LensRentals.com Tests, and Then Takes Apart the Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 5, 2014)

```
<div style="float: right; margin:0 0 76px 0px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16985">Tweet</a></div>
<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com" target="_blank">LensRentals.com</a> has put the new <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">Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS</a> through IMATEST against Canon’s other wide angle zoom lenses. As expected, it has come out on top when compared to the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-USA/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 17-40 f/4L</a>  and the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486708-USA/Canon_1910B002AA_EF_16_35mm_f_2_8L_II.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF 16-35 f/2.8L II</a>.</p>
<p><em>“I set a high bar for new Canon lenses. I expect them to be excellent and generally their recent releases have been. Since this was a wide-angle zoom, though, my expectations were lowered a bit. Canon has always struggled with wide-angle zooms. The 17-40 is a good, not great lens. The 16-35 f/2.8 II is better than the Mk I replaced, but I’d consider it, at best, adequate considering its price.</em></p>
<p style="color: #4a4a4a;"><em>The 16-35 f/4 IS changes that. It’s a superb optic — as good as anything else available. Of course, a lot of people want an f/2.8 zoom. But for many, like me, f/4 with IS is just fine for wide-angle shooting.”</em></p>
<p style="color: #4a4a4a;">Once they were done reviewing the EF 16-35 f/4L IS, they decided to take one apart. The LensRentals.com teardowns are a lot of fun, but also give us an idea of how durable the lens is going to be in real world use.</p>
<p style="color: #4a4a4a;"><em>“Now that I’ve seen the insides I’m very optimistic that this lens will be less likely to deteriorate optically over time, and will be more easily corrected when it does. We won’t know for sure until we’ve got a year’s experience with it, of course, but from a design and assembly standpoint it looks really, really good.”</em></p>
<p style="color: #4a4a4a;"><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison" target="_blank">Read the review</a> | <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/of-course-we-took-one-apart" target="_blank">Read the teardown</a> | <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">Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p style="color: #4a4a4a;"><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 5, 2014)

Wow! Now I am surprised.

I was expecting it to be good, maybe very good. But "superb"...

Where is my whish list...?


edit: and thanks a lot to Roger doing that meticulous work and giving us an insight of quality variations.


----------



## infared (Aug 5, 2014)

I love mine...
Even put up my 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss on eBay this weekend... Hate to let that go...I needed it when I had the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. The Zeiss just blew that lens away... but not the new UAW zoom. 
I really do not need the f/2.8..and the IS is just what the doctor ordered for most of what I shoot.
I know that is not true for everyone.


----------



## dstppy (Aug 5, 2014)

God bless people that have something nice, test it . . . then take it apart to see how it works.

"If you can't take it apart, you don't own it"


----------



## thedman (Aug 5, 2014)

infared said:


> I love mine...
> Even put up my 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss on eBay this weekend... Hate to let that go...I needed it when I had the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. The Zeiss just blew that lens away... but not the new UAW zoom.
> I really do not need the f/2.8..and the IS is just what the doctor ordered for most of what I shoot.
> I know that is not true for everyone.



That's where mine is heading, and for the same reason.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 5, 2014)

Performance in the same ball park as the legendary Nikon 12-24. 

Canon deserves some praise here!


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Performance in the same ball park as the legendary Nikon 12-24.
> 
> Canon deserves some praise here!



I am formally going to call the Nikon 14-24 as the most typo'd lens in this forum. 

But yes, I agree. The results are terrific. I imagine that Mackguyver (easily this forum's most avid discussion person on this lens) probably had kittens reading this article.

- A


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 5, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Performance in the same ball park as the legendary Nikon 12-24.
> ...



Hahaha!!! I'm an ass! 14-24, 14-24, 14-24!!! lol


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 5, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> But yes, I agree. The results are terrific. I imagine that Mackguyver (easily this forum's most avid discussion person on this lens) probably had kittens reading this article.
> 
> - A


What lens? Oh that one, yeah, I suppose I've discussed it a little bit  and I love the having kittens phrase - I haven't heard that one in a long time!

The article was quite interesting and I was happy to see how it compared to the Nikon 14-24, but I think we'd all like to see how these lenses compare at f/11 & f/16 where they are most likely to be used for landscapes. Roger's doing this for free and only has so much time, of course, so anything he does is greatly appreciated.

His comparisons seemed to match what I've seen in comparing it to the TS-E 17 and other lenses. To me, the biggest difference between the new 16-35 f/4 IS and the f/2.8 is the color and contrast. It's extremely similar to the 24-70 f/2.8 II and the difference between the f/4 IS and f/2.8 II is very much like the difference between the old 24-70 and the new one. Photos have that prime quality to them (minus the aperture, of course) and I'm really loving the lens. The vignetting and distortion are a bit worse than the old lens, but the Adobe profile works great and DxO's profile is on the horizon. 

The sharpness is equal to the TS-E 17 (at 17mm) and 24-70 f/2.8 II (@24mm), but is bested by the 24-70 f/2.8 II at 35mm and the TS-E 24mm at 24mm. I had already sold my 16-35 f/2.8 II, but in previous tests against the 24-70 f/2.8 II, it looked like a mushy mess at 24mm in comparison, at least for the outer 1/3 of the frame. The test also showed me that the TS-E 24mm is one damned sharp lens, no matter what Roger says about it vs. the 24-70 f/2.8 II.

The only truly bad part of the lens was comparing it to my recent TS-E 17 f/4 and finding that while it's just as sharp, the 17 has noticeably less contrast, more muted colors, and more CA. The consolation is that the 17 has almost zero distortion and vignetting (when neutral) and did I mention it tilts & shifts?


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2014)

Just a question with this lens. Knowing landscapers will stop this lens down considerably for DOF reasons, but also recognizing that at F/16 you've lost (roughly) 20% of the resolution, is there any value in focus stacking with landscapes? Provided you have a truly static scene (limited wind on foliage, no crashing waves, etc.), would compositing together 3, 4, 5, etc. images at a the lens's sharpest aperture yield better results?

Again: landscape newbie here. I've seen this done in controlled/studio macro work quite a bit, but I didn't know if the idea would pay dividends in landscapes.

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 5, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Just a question with this lens. Knowing landscapers will stop this lens down considerably for DOF reasons, but also recognizing that at F/16 you've lost (roughly) 20% of the resolution, is there any value in focus stacking with landscapes? Provided you have a truly static scene (limited wind on foliage, no crashing waves, etc.), would compositing together 3, 4, 5, etc. images at a the lens's sharpest aperture yield better results?
> 
> Again: landscape newbie here. I've seen this done in controlled/studio macro work quite a bit, but I didn't know if the idea would pay dividends in landscapes.
> 
> - A


Yes, you can certainly do this and I have tried it with between 2-20 exposures at f/5.6 or thereabouts, but between focus breathing (with some lenses) and the extra time needed during shooting and post, the results don't seem to justify it's use - at least for me. I don't find the effects of diffraction to be quite as severe in real-world use as they appear in test charts, at least after sharpening in post. I find that anything over 24 or may 35mm really needs to be shot at f/16 to get sufficient DOF, at least for many landscapes and without using a T/S lens. There are some photographers (Marc Adamus comes to mind) who do this with great success, primarily to increase DOF.


----------



## JonAustin (Aug 5, 2014)

Great write-up, and an encouraging read, w.r.t. future Canon lens releases. I hope that they maintain (and improve upon!) this level of optical and build quality with future L designs.


----------



## infared (Aug 5, 2014)

thedman said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I love mine...
> ...



Please wait until I have sold mine. LOL!


----------



## Eldar (Aug 5, 2014)

Oh I hate this. I sold the 16-35 f2.8L II, got the Zeiss 21/2.8 and Zeiss 15/2.8, in addition to the 17 TS-E. And I was so happy for several weeks. 

Reading the test of this new 16-35 throws everything into the boiler again ... :


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 5, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Oh I hate this. I sold the 16-35 f2.8L II, got the Zeiss 21/2.8 and Zeiss 15/2.8, in addition to the 17 TS-E. And I was so happy for several weeks.
> 
> Reading the test of this new 16-35 throws everything into the boiler again ... :


Eldar, I finally gave up and bought the TS-E 17 as well, only to have this lens come out...but the good news is that the lens isn't outrageously priced, and you still have a serious collection of wide/ultrawide lenses. Lenses that hold their value quite well, too, in case you decide to sell them someday, too.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 5, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Oh I hate this. I sold the 16-35 f2.8L II, got the Zeiss 21/2.8 and Zeiss 15/2.8, in addition to the 17 TS-E. And I was so happy for several weeks.
> 
> Reading the test of this new 16-35 throws everything into the boiler again ... :



Waaaait a minute. I thought buying a Zeiss Otus legally binds you to be happy with your gear and not covet new lenses, Eldar.

- A


----------



## Eldar (Aug 5, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I hate this. I sold the 16-35 f2.8L II, got the Zeiss 21/2.8 and Zeiss 15/2.8, in addition to the 17 TS-E. And I was so happy for several weeks.
> ...


He he, I don´t believe I mentioned the Otus


----------



## Eldar (Aug 7, 2014)

It´s on its way ...


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 7, 2014)

Eldar said:


> It´s on its way ...


Congrats!


----------



## Click (Aug 7, 2014)

Eldar said:


> It´s on its way ...



Congrats for your new acquisition.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 7, 2014)

There are some convincing reviews out there. TDP's ISO charts were the final drop. I think I have to start selling something ... :


----------



## BozillaNZ (Aug 12, 2014)

Plastic zoom and focus rings, hmmmm, that's first in the the L world with a full plastic outer shell.


----------



## raptor3x (Aug 12, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> Plastic zoom and focus rings, hmmmm, that's first in the the L world with a full plastic outer shell.



That may be, but it has the best focus and zoom action of any L lens I've ever used.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 12, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> Plastic zoom and focus rings, hmmmm, that's first in the the L world with a full plastic outer shell.



If I can get like this with plastic, I'll take plastic.

Jim


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 12, 2014)

raptor3x said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > Plastic zoom and focus rings, hmmmm, that's first in the the L world with a full plastic outer shell.
> ...



The focusing throw is sooooo short though I find it's much trickier to exactly nail down manual focus with live view than with the 24-70 II.


----------



## Khalai (Aug 12, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> Plastic zoom and focus rings, hmmmm, that's first in the the L world with a full plastic outer shell.



Engineering plastic, that is lighter, stronger and less brittle than magnesium? Anytime


----------



## BozillaNZ (Aug 12, 2014)

Then why are you guys so hung up to plastic body? The next 1D will be fully 'engineering' plastic too!


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 12, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> Then why are you guys so hung up to plastic body? The next 1D will be fully 'engineering' plastic too!


These are the same people who miss glass shampoo bottles, I suppose . While metal is reassuring and has a nice heft to it, the plastics that Canon uses are top notch and in my experience, very durable.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> BozillaNZ said:
> 
> 
> > Then why are you guys so hung up to plastic body? The next 1D will be fully 'engineering' plastic too!
> ...



My one experience with a lens being completely destroyed by a drop was entirely the fault of using plastic for the filter threads. Had they used stainless steel or aluminum, it would have bent a little, and the filter would have shattered, and that's it. Instead, the filter threads shattered, and the lens filter (whose threads were made of metal as they should be) dug into the front glass. The cost of replacing the front glass was more than the lens was worth, so I considered it a complete loss and moved on, but I'm very wary of plastic parts on lenses these days as a result.

At the very least, filter threads on a lens should *always* be made of metal. Anything else is a hack.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 12, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> My one experience with a lens being completely destroyed by a drop was entirely the fault of using plastic for the filter threads. Had they used stainless steel or aluminum, it would have bent a little, and the filter would have shattered, and that's it. Instead, the filter threads shattered, and the lens filter (whose threads were made of metal as they should be) dug into the front glass. The cost of replacing the front glass was more than the lens was worth, so I considered it a complete loss and moved on, but I'm very wary of plastic parts on lenses these days as a result.
> 
> At the very least, filter threads on a lens should *always* be made of metal. Anything else is a hack.



I understand your position, but I respectfully disagree. Lugging around heavier items sucks _all the time_ as insurance for something that _doesn't happen so often_. I have had one straight drop of my gear in 10 years of shooting with SLRs (and everything was fine anyway). 

Provided the weather sealing doesn't suffer and they choose plastics for the long-term that are UV/oxidization resistant, I'll choose lighter weight over a sturdier material every time. I'd love to see even my tank-like 70-200 F/2.8 IS II get the weight reduction treatment if I could.

Now, if I was shooting sports or covering a war zone, the calculus might change. But until then, I'd like to sweat less and shoot in higher comfort.

- A


----------



## brad-man (Aug 12, 2014)

BozillaNZ said:


> Plastic zoom and focus rings, hmmmm, that's first in the the L world with a full plastic outer shell.



Have a look at this little gem that's been out for over four years:

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/macro-lenses/ef-100mm-f-28l-macro-is-usm?WT.mc_id=C126149

OK, it doesn't have a plastic zoom ring 8)


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 13, 2014)

I was curious about this, so I looked up a few. Ever-trusty-TDP has this anecdotally listed in some reviews but not in it's handy specifications pull-down, so I had to go to (roll eyes) Ken Rockwell's site for this:

_Just for the filter threads..._

24-70 F/4L = plastic
24-70 F/2.8L II = plastic
24-105L = plastic 
70-200 F/4L IS = plastic
70-200 F/2.8L IS II = metal
70-300L = metal
35L = metal
50L = plastic
85L = metal
100L = plastic 
135L = plastic

So it's a bit of a mixed bag. Some wonderful lenses on that list have plastic threads and seem to be doing just fine. But I do understand the confidence metal components can inspire: my old 24-70 F/2.8L I was a pickle jar full of metal, and am fairly certain I could have used it as a hammer.

- A


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 13, 2014)

that lens hood actually looks usable!

so if this and the 16-35 2.8 are both full frame why does the 16-35 2.8 have such a ridiculously unusable lens hood.

Looks like a great lens if you can live with f4 max aperture, i'll keep waiting for a new 16-35 f2.8 hopefully with IS too


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 13, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > My one experience with a lens being completely destroyed by a drop was entirely the fault of using plastic for the filter threads. Had they used stainless steel or aluminum, it would have bent a little, and the filter would have shattered, and that's it. Instead, the filter threads shattered, and the lens filter (whose threads were made of metal as they should be) dug into the front glass. The cost of replacing the front glass was more than the lens was worth, so I considered it a complete loss and moved on, but I'm very wary of plastic parts on lenses these days as a result.
> ...



Using metal for the last half inch of the barrel is going to add maybe a fraction of an ounce....


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 13, 2014)

Your story of a written off lens is yet another example of why I won't use "protective" filters.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 13, 2014)

I'm honestly sick and tried of comments like "were made of metal as they should be" or "should always be made of metal"...


----------



## Ruined (Aug 13, 2014)

romanr74 said:


> I'm honestly sick and tried of comments like "were made of metal as they should be" or "should always be made of metal"...



I agree - with a zoom lens if you drop it bad enough that it cracks or damages the plastic it will likely need to be sent in for service to be re-aligned anyway. And metal will dent before good plastic cracks in my experience. Unless the lens design calls for metal due to rigidity purposes (i.e. 70-200) I don't see the issue with plastics.

I don't like plastic on the lens mount, though, because metal camera mount on plastic threads will likely result in plastic shavings/debris in the camera body eventually.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 14, 2014)

Ruined said:


> I agree - with a zoom lens if you drop it bad enough that it cracks or damages the plastic it will likely need to be sent in for service to be re-aligned anyway.



At least on this particular lens, that wasn't the case. The lens took about a two foot drop onto asphalt (relatively soft as materials go). The thin threads literally disintegrated into half a dozen splinters of plastic, half a millimeter by a millimeter by an inch long each, give or take, each of which was basically one thread. You could readily snap them in two by using only three fingers and applying a fairly small amount of force. There's probably no way you can make the threads thicker and still be compatible with existing filters, so you're pretty much stuck with something a little thicker than a piece of pencil lead taking the full brunt of the impact.

In spite of the impact, though, I kept using the lens for the remainder of that trip, and it worked approximately as well as did before (it wasn't a great lens to begin with, mind you), except that I couldn't put filters on it anymore, the lens cap kept falling off, and I got glare if the sun hit the scratches just right.

I think it's more a question of luck whether an end impact will cause plastic threads to disintegrate or not. It has less to do with the force of the impact and more to do with the angle of the impact, as to whether the razor-thin threads or the body itself takes most of the hit. That's why I feel that lenses should always use metal threads. In the worst case, metal threads bend and must be replaced. In the worst case, plastic threads shatter, and your front glass must be replaced. And even if it does require a recalibration afterwards, that's still likely to be cheaper than recalibration plus replacing the front glass.


----------

