# Impressions from the EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM



## JoFT (Nov 10, 2014)

Many people complain about the necessity of Image stabilization at wide angle lenses...

Here are some hand held shots which show the benefits...

http://delightphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/8/image-stabilization-in-wide-angle-lenses


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 10, 2014)

These days I rarely use my IS at all (well once this year) on any of my IS lenses.
Whilst I fancy the 16-35 F4 very much I struggle to think of a use for the IS for my photography, I don't use it on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS even when hand holding so on a 16-35?
Still if people want it then Canon would be silly not to include it!


----------



## martti (Dec 18, 2014)

8) Nice shooting, JoFT. Looks like you are really enjoying your toyool.
For me it looks ike I am having a problem whether to upgrade the 24-70 f/2.8 to version II or get this one.
I do not really need more glass...


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 18, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> These days I rarely use my IS at all (well once this year) on any of my IS lenses.
> Whilst I fancy the 16-35 F4 very much I struggle to think of a use for the IS for my photography, I don't use it on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS even when hand holding so on a 16-35?
> Still if people want it then Canon would be silly not to include it!



I recently spent 3 weeks in Europe traveling all over. Inside catherdals and many places tripods weren't allowed or to much of a hassle with so many people. And let me tell you the IS on the 16-35 worked wonders for getting hand held shots in extremely low light. Without it Theres know way I would've gotten those shots hand held at the slow shutter speed I needed.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 18, 2014)

JoFT said:


> Many people complain about the necessity of Image stabilization at wide angle lenses...



So what? I didn't read anyone disputing that if your're shooting in dim light and nothing moves (or you wan motion blur), IS can be very handy to have. But do you get down to optimal ISO with IS? Probably not.

So in my book, using a tripod for the kinds of shots on your blog is still to preferred unless you're only targeting web size. And esp. in this case, an old and shaggy 17-40L (when used properly) will be indistinguishable from the newest and shiniest lens marvel in Canon's lineup.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 18, 2014)

Ryan85 said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > These days I rarely use my IS at all (well once this year) on any of my IS lenses.
> ...



Coincidentally I was in France in September doing very similar things! I was using the 24-105 and 17-40, I can't quite afford the new 16-35 yet! When in France these sort of shots are compulsory as far as I am concerned. Admittedly I do use a 1DX so I can let the ISO rise quite a bit before it concerns me.
As stated, these days, I find very little use for IS, I am not saying it is not handy occasionally but I am getting more keepers on my long lenses without it and have little/no use for it on short lenses. As such I would speculate that the 16-35 F4 might have been an even better (and slightly cheaper) lens without IS and the extra element + bulk that it involves. Either way it seems to be a lovely lens and I will be investing in one as and when I can afford one!


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 19, 2014)

Morgoth said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > So in my book, using a tripod for the kinds of shots on your blog is still to preferred unless you're only targeting web size. And esp. in this case, an old and shaggy 17-40L (when used properly) will be indistinguishable from the newest and shiniest lens marvel in Canon's lineup.
> ...



If your 17-40L wasn't tack sharp, probably it wasn't properly afma'd or you had a broken lens. Or you're probably not able to handle it - in this case, IS certainly is a big help to get less blur.


----------



## JoFT (Dec 21, 2014)

martti said:


> 8) Nice shooting, JoFT. Looks like you are really enjoying your toyool.
> For me it looks ike I am having a problem whether to upgrade the 24-70 f/2.8 to version II or get this one.
> I do not really need more glass...



I would go to extend my range: 16-35 and 24-70 is more comlimentary... And the 16-35 is a really great lens... independently from the IS...


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 22, 2014)

JoFT said:


> Many people complain about the necessity of Image stabilization at wide angle lenses...
> 
> Here are some hand held shots which show the benefits...
> 
> http://delightphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/8/image-stabilization-in-wide-angle-lenses


I personally found IS very handy. It increases the keepers at low shooter speeds, such as 1/2-1/3s without increasing ISO.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 22, 2014)

Everyone can shoot as they please, but I don't understand how someone can say there's no need for IS on lenses.

Yes, there's lot of shoots when there's absolutely no need for IS. But aside from some rumors, I've never seen evidence that IS degrades photo, save for that split second when it spins up. So I don't understand why you'd leave it off, since it might save the shot you took.

Plus I can think of lot of places when you want to use it. If someone don't, then their photo-style doesn't include such scenes.

But from 16-35/2.8 vs. F4IS, I'd probably take the 2.8 just because everyone thinks 2.8 is cool. For most shoots, the F4IS would probably be better.


----------



## JoFT (Dec 22, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> JoFT said:
> 
> 
> > Many people complain about the necessity of Image stabilization at wide angle lenses...
> ...



I totally agree. I love to have the IS. It makes things easier... And you do not need to have a tripod with you all the time...


----------



## JoFT (Dec 22, 2014)

tpatana said:


> Everyone can shoot as they please, but I don't understand how someone can say there's no need for IS on lenses.
> 
> Yes, there's lot of shoots when there's absolutely no need for IS. But aside from some rumors, I've never seen evidence that IS degrades photo, save for that split second when it spins up. So I don't understand why you'd leave it off, since it might save the shot you took.
> 
> ...



In this case I would like to go for a prime in addition, f.i. the 14mm f2.8 Rokinon/Samyang/Walimex Lens or even more extrem...


----------



## martti (Dec 22, 2014)

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is a full manual lens that you have to stop down to figure out the exposure.
Which again dims the viewfinder and you cannot really tell what is in focus and what is not.
The distortion is quite shocking as well. It is cheap, OK. I have it and I am still climbing the learning curve. I am not sure if I 'll keep it.

The EF 20mm f/2.8 is an old design, nothing spectacular but a very useful thing in my bag. I've had it from the times of my EOS-5. 

It seems that the new 16-35 f/4 IS is optically superior to the f/2.8 lens. The IS gives you two apertures that can help you get your shot –unless the subject is moving, of course. Do you actually buy lenses because they are 'cool' or was that a joke?


----------



## gargamel (Dec 22, 2014)

My 0.02 EUR. 

IS makes a lot of sense in a wide angle lens. One scenario was mentioned here: Tripods not allowed or just not at hand. Looking at my (very amateurish) photos of recent years, I found quite a few that are slightly blurred or just a little "soft", and I think with support of IS many of them would have been sharp.

IS is useless in good lighting conditions or for moving subjects, of course. But as a matter of fact, most subjects you would use a wide angle lens for don't move, at all: "inside" and "outside" architecture, landscapes etc. With less than optimal lighting IS can assist you very well, I think.

On the other hand, Fujifilm announced its upcoming 16-50 mm/f2.8 lens to come without IS --- for maximum IQ and less weigh.

gargamel


----------



## e17paul (Dec 22, 2014)

JoFT said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > JoFT said:
> ...



I ony wish I had known this lens was coming when I bought my 24 IS.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 22, 2014)

martti said:


> Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is a full manual lens that you have to stop down to figure out the exposure.
> Which again dims the viewfinder and you cannot really tell what is in focus and what is not.
> The distortion is quite shocking as well. It is cheap, OK. I have it and I am still climbing the learning curve. I am not sure if I 'll keep it.



Rokinon is easy. Dial in F8, focus at 1m (3ft) and you're set. (Hyperfocal is <1 meter) No need to be able to tell if something is in focus or not, because everything will be.

For distortion, there's LR profile you can use. It doesn't make it great, but it helps. For the price, it's amazing lens.



> It seems that the new 16-35 f/4 IS is optically superior to the f/2.8 lens. The IS gives you two apertures that can help you get your shot –unless the subject is moving, of course. Do you actually buy lenses because they are 'cool' or was that a joke?



Anyone who considers himself (/herself) a photographer, should only buy 2.8 or faster. You can easily spot the amateurs carrying the F4s around.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 22, 2014)

tpatana said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is a full manual lens that you have to stop down to figure out the exposure.
> ...



To your first point, anyone who has relied on hyperfocal focusing hasn't taken the time and trouble to check their images for critical sharpness. Hyperfocal focusing is a kludge that guarantees practically nothing, including most times the subject, is actually in focus.

And to your second, anyone who believes that is an idiot, just look at the likes of Joel Grimes (who uses a 24-105 f4 almost exclusively for his subjects), or even CR's own Sporgon, who also churns out the highest quality work with f4 lenses. There are countless pros, and very experienced non pros, shooting the highest quality images with f4 lenses.


----------



## Jim K (Dec 22, 2014)

tpatana said:


> Anyone who considers himself (/herself) a photographer, should only buy 2.8 or faster. You can easily spot the amateurs carrying the F4s around.



Agree. But between the higher cost and carrying around all that extra weight I don't know if I would purchase the Canon 600mm f/2.8L IS L or just stick with the f/4 version and look like an amateur. Oh but ... ;D


----------



## gargamel (Dec 22, 2014)

A bit OT, but while I have read lots of positive reviews about the Canon EF 16-35mm f4, before buying it, I want to get
(1) a full-frame camera (my 5D1 has died, and fixing it is just economical nonsense) 
(2) a view on the SP 15-30mm F/2.8 Di VC USD, for which Tamron made a development announcement at the Photokina 2014. This promises to be a real contender, but let's see.

gargamel


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 22, 2014)

OMG! I am a complete idiot (not even an amateur!) my 800mm is an [email protected]!!!!!! I really wanted the F2 model but couldn't afford the Range Rover to put it on! What an ill informed comment about F2.8 (pretty slow lenses) comment!
Back to the 16-35 F4 L IS. To me IS has it's uses but they do not occur very often, mainly because I am quite happy to shoot at ISO 8000 or a touch higher. Given the ISOs that I can now use then most of the time IS is merely a dead piece of glass between my sensor and my subject and anything extra between you and the subject is never good.
Having said that the new 16-35 F4 looks like the perfect wide lens for me, I just think it could have been a touch better without IS.
Just my 2p.


----------



## nc0b (Dec 22, 2014)

If I use the hyperfocal marks on my Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 lens, I focus it as if I have set it 2 stops wider open than actual. Otherwise anything near infinity, as in a landscape, looks like mush.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 22, 2014)

I bought the 16-35 for my work and I am very satisfied with it. I use it on a tripod almost exclusively so IS is not an issue but as I paid for it I am happy to have it.

The lens is very sharp and contrasty but I need to be at f8 or smaller to ensure edge sharpness at 16mm.
I am using it for less critical architectural work when I need to work quickly. Thus it suits me very well.

I too, was interested in the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 but even if it is perfectly wonderful I won't buy it as I am fine with the Canon and any improvement will not be seen by clients.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 23, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> These days I rarely use my IS at all (well once this year) on any of my IS lenses.
> Whilst I fancy the 16-35 F4 very much I struggle to think of a use for the IS for my photography, I don't use it on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS even when hand holding so on a 16-35?
> Still if people want it then Canon would be silly not to include it!



I find this very odd. Canon is not likely to drop the price anyways, and its always a net benefit. Always. Im confused anytime someone would 'complain' about it...just doesn't make sense to me. (Sounds kind of photog snobby)

PS- no IS on 800mm....sir i think you are really a statue


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Dec 23, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > These days I rarely use my IS at all (well once this year) on any of my IS lenses.
> ...



My problem/concern with IS is the "dead" piece of glass in the optical path and the fact that IS slows down AF, it can upset tracking as well.
Now I am not worried about AF speed on a 16-35 but I can't help feeling that this lens might not have been a tad better (IQ wise) without it. I could well be wrong but these are just my thoughts. I agree though - Canon will NOT drop the price - it is just not in their vocabulary! Whatever the 16-35 F4 is a cracking lens and I want one!

As to the "Statue" point - no I am not. I am a 56 year old, arthritic, unfit, overweight, smoker, drinker, diabetic and lazy slob! So if I can hand hold the Canon 800mm at 1/500 without IS (almost) anybody can! It does take a little practice though.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 24, 2014)

Jim K said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who considers himself (/herself) a photographer, should only buy 2.8 or faster. You can easily spot the amateurs carrying the F4s around.
> ...



;D

If people read the text I wrote above (instead of catching the comic part), I said the 24-70F4L is better for most occasions than the 2.8 II.

But there's truth in what I said, in many places only 2.8s are allowed, anything less is "ameteur". My main lens is 70-200 2.8, but the next one after that is 24-105 F4LIS. And I consider myself purely amateur.


----------



## Besisika (Dec 24, 2014)

JoFT said:


> Many people complain about the necessity of Image stabilization at wide angle lenses...
> 
> Here are some hand held shots which show the benefits...
> 
> http://delightphoto.zenfolio.com/blog/2014/8/image-stabilization-in-wide-angle-lenses



The key is in what you are doing with your photography. 

Currently, the widest I have is the 24-70 f4IS. Believe it or not but I bought that lens for handheld video and sport panning, and for both without IS it would be useless. I can't find any lens that can suit better my need. I am really stunned by the IS on handheld video.

I am expanding my photography to wide angle and wondering if he 16-35 would be a better choice for me.
I was planning on buying the 35 1.4 for low light (for me 2.8 is not for photographers, at least 1.4 - LOL - give the guy a break, he has received way too many punches already) and a 16-28 Tokina for wide angle on full frame.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > martti said:
> ...


Well said - on both!


----------



## sanj (Dec 24, 2014)

tpatana said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is a full manual lens that you have to stop down to figure out the exposure.
> ...



You make a fool of yourself when you write crap like that. Sorry to put it so bluntly.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Dec 24, 2014)

I like mine. I have to admit that I had always avoided anything wider than 24 because of the distortion. Seems it spends a lot more time on my camera than most the others. Like the range, IQ is plenty, and f4 seems OK as the ISO bump is only a stop and I don't shoot low light all that often - except the stars, need to get something for stars.

Good


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Dec 24, 2014)

dilbert said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > martti said:
> ...


----------



## Khalai (Dec 24, 2014)

tpatana said:


> Anyone who considers himself (/herself) a photographer, should only buy 2.8 or faster. You can easily spot the amateurs carrying the F4s around.



So, by your definition, 300/4L, 400/4 DO, 600/4L or 800/5.6L and 100-400/4.5-5.6L or 200-400/4L+TC are all just amateur lenses? And my trusty but rusty 50/1.4 is considered a very professional lens (4x faster than 2.8)?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 24, 2014)

Busted Knuckles said:


> I like mine. I have to admit that I had always avoided anything wider than 24 because of the distortion.



Um, seems like you're missing the point of an uwa zoom and would be better served with a 24-70/4? For "no distortion" straight out of camera you're better off with a wide prime afaik.



Khalai said:


> And my trusty but rusty 50/1.4 is considered a very professional lens (4x faster than 2.8)?



Unfortunately, the fallacy gear xyz equals "professional" or "good photog" is very common. I'm cured since I read some books on flash photography, wedding and lighting and all those people used the 24-105/4, often stopped down to f5.6. Having shot some people scenes, I can sympathize - unless you are desperate for the light gathering of f2.8 it's not worth it for having people out of focus.

At least with my f4 lens setup, I can at least consider myself competent by owning a 50/1.8 :->


----------



## Khalai (Dec 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Unfortunately, the fallacy gear xyz equals "professional" or "good photog" is very common. I'm cured since I read some books on flash photography, wedding and lighting and all those people used the 24-105/4, often stopped down to f5.6. Having shot some people scenes, I can sympathize - unless you are desperate for the light gathering of f2.8 it's not worth it for having people out of focus.
> 
> At least with my f4 lens setup, I can at least consider myself competent by owning a 50/1.8 :->



Well, the only reason I have 2.8 zooms is luck  I was fed up with my 70-200/4 IS being repaired twice for focus ring slipping issue and second-hand 70-200/2.8 II for a mere third more was too good to pass. Same with 24-70/2.8 II. I got it for just quarter more than 24-70/4 was at the time before the big price drop.

As for aperture for group shots. I've read somewhere that you should keep your aperture first number higher than the number of people you want sharp up to f/8 (considering usual focal lenghts and usual distance of course). IDK if there is some precision to it, but it served me pretty well on weddings I've done in the past.


----------



## e17paul (Dec 24, 2014)

Khalai said:


> As for aperture for group shots. I've read somewhere that you should keep your aperture first number higher than the number of people you want sharp up to f/8 (considering usual focal lenghts and usual distance of course). IDK if there is some precision to it, but it served me pretty well on weddings I've done in the past.



That seems to be a really good rule of thumb for keeping a group of unpredictable humans in focus.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 25, 2014)

Khalai said:


> As for aperture for group shots. I've read somewhere that you should keep your aperture first number higher than the number of people you want sharp up to f/8 (considering usual focal lenghts and usual distance of course). IDK if there is some precision to it, but it served me pretty well on weddings I've done in the past.



My last group was 80 people. I am sure my flash could not overpower f90.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Busted Knuckles said:
> 
> 
> > I like mine. I have to admit that I had always avoided anything wider than 24 because of the distortion.
> ...



50/1.8 is the first pro lens most people buy.


----------

