# EF 16-35 f/4L, Now that it's been out for a while, what are your thoughts?



## slclick (Oct 29, 2014)

My current kit has found me with the widest FL of 24 and I have been mulling over the 16-35 f/4 L IS. I have owned both the 17-40 and 2.8 16-35. Also a Zeiss 18 3.5. 

I'd like to hear from those who own/owned/rented this supposedly super sharp in the center, sharp in the corners lens. 

TIA


----------



## JumboShrimp (Oct 29, 2014)

The simple answer is ... It's the best WA I have ever seen. Thought that 16mm wide wouldn't need IS, but I was completely wrong. Bought it and never looked back.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Oct 29, 2014)

There's no replacement for f/2.8 in a few applications but considering everything this lens is I don't miss the 16-35 f/2.8 I rented and won't miss my 17-40 when it goes.

Jim


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 29, 2014)

slclick said:


> My current kit has found me with the widest FL of 24 and I have been mulling over the 16-35 f/4 L IS. I have owned both the 17-40 and 2.8 16-35. Also a Zeiss 18 3.5.
> 
> I'd like to hear from those who own/owned/rented this supposedly super sharp in the center, sharp in the corners lens.
> 
> TIA


I had both Canon 17-40mm and 16-35mm f2.8L II and sold the later one to get the new 16-35 f4L IS. I haven't been happier with my decision in terms of IQ, sharpness and portability. IS is phenomenal and allows me to shoot at very low speeds, borders are sharp enough wide open and improve a little when stopped down. At 35mm, the difference with my 35 f2IS is minimal.
Just get it.
the 2.8 version has an advantage for sports and quick action but, for everything else this lens wins hands down.


----------



## tculotta (Oct 29, 2014)

Favorite lens. Great IQ, great range for landscapes, very attractive price (relative). What's not to love? Buy one!


----------



## FEBS (Oct 29, 2014)

On my last safari I used this 16-35 f4. I left 14mm and 24 at home because of weight restrictions. It was the first time I used this lens that much. It's fantastic. I didn't think a minute about the 24 and the 14mm. Is a very great replacement for my 17-40. To be honest, I even don't know if I should keep that 14 2.8 and 24 1.4ii.

Was besides the 200-400 one of the best purchases this year when I look to the results


----------



## infared (Oct 29, 2014)

FEBS said:


> On my last safari I used this 16-35 f4. I left 14mm and 24 at home because of weight restrictions. It was the first time I used this lens that much. It's fantastic. I didn't think a minute about the 24 and the 14mm. Is a very great replacement for my 17-40. To be honest, I even don't know if I should keep that 14 2.8 and 24 1.4ii.
> 
> Was besides the 200-400 one of the best purchases this year when I look to the results



Yeah...I sold my 16-35mm f/2.8II to buy it. So it cost me nothing and then I realized that it was so sharp and with the IS and accurate AF I also sold my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. I just stopped using it. So the lens allowEd me to turn a profit


----------



## slclick (Oct 29, 2014)

So you're all still on the fence? lol....But seriously folks, thanks for the feedback!


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 29, 2014)

Any chance a rebate will be offered during the holiday season? Every little bit helps!


----------



## Nethawk (Oct 29, 2014)

There is currently a rebate of $100. With Canonpricewatch street price at $1049.99 I'm not sure it will be dropping much lower, but if you can wait black Friday/cyber Monday may have some surprises.

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/05439/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f4L-IS-USM-price.html


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 29, 2014)

Bought mine about 2 months ago. It's an excellent lens. Did loads of landscape with long exposures on my Disney vacation. Just incredibly impressed how it performs.


----------



## JorritJ (Oct 29, 2014)

Still have the 16-35 2.8 II, haven't used it since getting the 4.0. It's fingerlicking good.


----------



## Skywise (Oct 29, 2014)

One question I haven't seen answered - I'm heading out to Disney in a few weeks and planning on videoing the fireworks with my 6D and 16-35 F2.8II. I've used it before with great success but I'm tempted to switch to the F4 version for regular photos plus the IS might be more advantageous while videoing but I'm leery of losing the F2.8 for the fireworks lighting. I used to video them with a T4i and an EF-S 10-22 and the F3.5 never quite looked as good as shooting with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 (but I preferred the wide angle of the 10-22). That's what I'm using for comparison and I'm not sure it's fair given that I"m comparing a cropped to FF sensor as well.

How are the low light capabilities of the lens compared to the f2.8 version?


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 29, 2014)

A quick answer is YES. This could be Canon best UWA zoom ever. Here are some photos taken with 16-35 f4 IS: 

http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/Landscape/Calico-Ghost-Town/i-pSBpXGF#!/Landscape/Calico-Ghost-Town/i-hJBqPPc

There are some with 70-200, but all wide shots were taken with f4 IS. Be able to shoot f22ish handheld at slower shutter is very helpful. IS is super on 1/10 or slower - handheld of course. I had 16-35 f2.8 II in the past, f4 IS is clearly a winner.


----------



## FEBS (Oct 29, 2014)

Skywise said:


> One question I haven't seen answered - I'm heading out to Disney in a few weeks and planning on videoing the fireworks with my 6D and 16-35 F2.8II. I've used it before with great success but I'm tempted to switch to the F4 version for regular photos plus the IS might be more advantageous while videoing but I'm leery of losing the F2.8 for the fireworks lighting. I used to video them with a T4i and an EF-S 10-22 and the F3.5 never quite looked as good as shooting with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 (but I preferred the wide angle of the 10-22). That's what I'm using for comparison and I'm not sure it's fair given that I"m comparing a cropped to FF sensor as well.
> 
> How are the low light capabilities of the lens compared to the f2.8 version?



You know the answer I think.
The 16-35 f4 is one stop less then the 2.8. So the same you did find on the comparison between the 10-22 and the 17-55, will here be the same. The 10-22 is an excellent lens on a crop body, but the f3.5 is not the strongest side of this lens for doing low light.


----------



## Skywise (Oct 29, 2014)

FEBS said:


> You know the answer I think.
> The 16-35 f4 is one stop less then the 2.8. So the same you did find on the comparison between the 10-22 and the 17-55, will here be the same. The 10-22 is an excellent lens on a crop body, but the f3.5 is not the strongest side of this lens for doing low light.



Yeah that was ultimately what I was thinking but I thought the FF sensor may be more of a factor than extra stops. (as it is, the videos I took with the 16-35 on the 6D were breathtaking


----------



## Nethawk (Oct 30, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Skywise said:
> 
> 
> > One question I haven't seen answered - I'm heading out to Disney in a few weeks and planning on videoing the fireworks with my 6D and 16-35 F2.8II. I've used it before with great success but I'm tempted to switch to the F4 version for regular photos plus the IS might be more advantageous while videoing but I'm leery of losing the F2.8 for the fireworks lighting. I used to video them with a T4i and an EF-S 10-22 and the F3.5 never quite looked as good as shooting with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 (but I preferred the wide angle of the 10-22). That's what I'm using for comparison and I'm not sure it's fair given that I"m comparing a cropped to FF sensor as well.
> ...



I'm transitioning to FF across most focal lengths (will keep my EF-S 15-85mm lens though), and just ordered the 16-35mm f/4. While I know it to be true, I keep telling myself if it's as good as the 10-22mm I'll be a happy camper. Love that lens!


----------



## slclick (Oct 31, 2014)

Done, just doing my small part to keep B&H in business.


----------



## Denisas Pupka (Dec 5, 2014)

Before buying my first wide angle lenses after so many good responds I got only one option: Samyang 14mm f/2.8. I was very disappointed because of: very noticeable soft corners, big distortions and minor problem -> lack of autofocus. So in the end I put my trigger for new canon 16-35mm f/4 IS. I'm only hobbyist, so I got money only for Grey market order, which comes twice the price of Samyang 14mm, but at least not three times higher like officially in UK. 

From first day I was in love for this lens. Picture sharpness - from corner to corner. Modern look, build like tank and very nice feel of zoom and focusing ring. Very nice to use for video capture as well. Love that it got 77mm filter thread as well, like most of my lens. 

I got chance to make some timelapses using this lens, so maybe somebody will be interested seeing it:

http://youtu.be/OyxlDlXhAZA
http://youtu.be/NLUVbpVFYpQ

Cheers


----------



## iMagic (Dec 5, 2014)

Denisas Pupka said:


> Before buying my first wide angle lenses after so many good responds I got only one option: Samyang 14mm f/2.8. I was very disappointed because of: very noticeable soft corners



I tried the Samyang 14mm and returned it. The corners are so stretched that they turn to mush. After lens correction for the distortion, the 14mm advantage is lost.


----------



## slclick (Dec 5, 2014)

I too did the Sam/Bow/Rok 14 and couldn't deal with it, even with the best LR5 correction. This 16-35 is my new favorite piece of glass.I find I'm very happy with it around 18-20 while using a Z-Pro filter.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 5, 2014)

Nethawk said:


> I'm transitioning to FF across most focal lengths (will keep my EF-S 15-85mm lens though), and just ordered the 16-35mm f/4. While I know it to be true, I keep telling myself if it's as good as the 10-22mm I'll be a happy camper. Love that lens!



I used to own an EF-S 10-22 that I used with my T2i and 7D before I moved to FF. I have hundreds of terrific pictures with it. If you compare the 10-22 (on 60D) with 16-35/4 IS (on 1Ds Mkiii) its a night and day difference in favor of the newer EF lens on a full format body.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 5, 2014)

I sold my 16-35/2.8 II recently and picked up this lens. It is a great lens and an amazing buy for the price. The main reasons I bought it were the image stabilization and better IR handling. So far it has proved worthy in both areas.

Here are several photos I have taken recently with it.
This one is a hand held HDR.


Marymoor Windmill by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Infrared (unconverted camera + filter)


IMG_0012-Edit.jpg by CalevPhoto, on Flickr

Hand held. 1/5 second.


Haunted House by CalevPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 6, 2014)

Perhaps a dumb question but here goes anyway. How much of a handicap would you experienced guys consider not taking the 24-70 F4 but going with the 16-35 F4 and the 70-200 F2.8. From my limited experience I seem to be at 24 a lot very often wishing for wider on landscapes and then sometimes at 70. Otherwise I'm with longer lenses shooting wildlife. I don't relish carrying too many lenses on mountain hikes especially when I've included my 300 F2.8.

Jack


----------



## slclick (Dec 6, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Perhaps a dumb question but here goes anyway. How much of a handicap would you experienced guys consider not taking the 24-70 F4 but going with the 16-35 F4 and the 70-200 F2.8. From my limited experience I seem to be at 24 a lot very often wishing for wider on landscapes and then sometimes at 70. Otherwise I'm with longer lenses shooting wildlife. I don't relish carrying too many lenses on mountain hikes especially when I've included my 300 F2.8.
> 
> Jack



Jack, Focal lengths are so personal. Many would say do a LR (or whatever software you you) search on most used FL's. Then again it's limited to what glass you own and use. Personally I'm not much for the 35-70 range unless I'm shooting alternative such as film or Lensbaby selective focus. YMMV. I know many shooters who prefer the extremes, wider and tele and not 'normal'. However if you're packing quite a bit you might want to get that FL covered in a light and inexpensive way, i.e. pancake or Nifty Fifty. Neither of these will break the bank or back.

Funny you mentioned this because if I was going to carry two lenses right now for a random shoot, the 16-35 and 70-200 2.8 Mk2 would be my picks.

Not sure I answered your question but those are my ramblings ...


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 6, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Perhaps a dumb question but here goes anyway. How much of a handicap would you experienced guys consider not taking the 24-70 F4 but going with the 16-35 F4 and the 70-200 F2.8. From my limited experience I seem to be at 24 a lot very often wishing for wider on landscapes and then sometimes at 70. Otherwise I'm with longer lenses shooting wildlife. I don't relish carrying too many lenses on mountain hikes especially when I've included my 300 F2.8.
> 
> Jack



Not too much, if you don't think you'll use it much on your hikes. Weight restrictions (travel, hiking or otherwise) will force you to miss some shots but you pick the lenses that will get you the most important shots. I'd bring a fast 50 if the weight allowed, just so I can use it in low light conditions, etc.


----------



## steven kessel (Dec 6, 2014)

Well, for me it's been unconditional love. I'm really a rank amateur when it comes to landscapes, my forte is wildlife photography and I've always been at the other end of the lens spectrum. But, when Canon offered the 16-35 I thought "why not?" and ordered it. I've been delighted with the results. It never occurred to me that IS would be a benefit on a wide angle lens. Not until I started photographing with it. But, I'm getting razor sharp results down to 1/30 with this lens and my hands just aren't that steady. And, as for sharpness, well, I never cease to be amazed by what this lens is capable of doing. I love it!


----------



## SPL (Dec 6, 2014)

I had my 17-40mm for a long time. It was my most used lens, but always thought it was a bit soft. Never thought the 16-35 2.8 II was much of an upgrade for IQ and didn't want/need the speed. I sold it and got the new 16-35 f4. What can I say.....it's fantastic!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 6, 2014)

slclick and Random Orbits, thanks for those comments. I've not had any regrets about the 24-70 F4 other than it's not as wide as I like. I have enjoyed the tourist macro feature but could live without it and now I'm thinking 16-35 is for me. 

I'm somewhat like Steven. A trip in May to Haida gwaii (Queen Charlotte Islands) has me imagining the 16-35 would be wonderful and the cost is not really that bad, all things considered. I'll be looking for a deal before then.

Jack


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 6, 2014)

I absolutely love this lens. It's so sharp, and a very good price for the quality of this lens. The is is great too.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 6, 2014)

kirispupis said:


> I sold my 16-35/2.8 II recently and picked up this lens. It is a great lens and an amazing buy for the price. The main reasons I bought it were the image stabilization and better IR handling. So far it has proved worthy in both areas.
> 
> Here are several photos I have taken recently with it.
> This one is a hand held HDR.
> ...




Great shots!


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 6, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Perhaps a dumb question but here goes anyway. How much of a handicap would you experienced guys consider not taking the 24-70 F4 but going with the 16-35 F4 and the 70-200 F2.8. From my limited experience I seem to be at 24 a lot very often wishing for wider on landscapes and then sometimes at 70. Otherwise I'm with longer lenses shooting wildlife. I don't relish carrying too many lenses on mountain hikes especially when I've included my 300 F2.8.
> 
> Jack




That's not a dumb question. it depends on your shooting style. If Im shooting weddings, events and group photos I like using the 24-70 or 24-105 with the 70-200. If I'm shooting landscapes or travel photos I use the 16-35 with the 70-200 and I rarely finding myself wanting the the range between. So it really depends on your needs and shooting style.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 6, 2014)

Ryan85, it makes perfect sense to me. I imagine with my 6D I could get away with cropping into the missing range if need be. Making 35 into say a 55 equivalent - how much cropping would that represent?

Jack


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 6, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Ryan85, it makes perfect sense to me. I imagine with my 6D I could get away with cropping into the missing range if need be. Making 35 into say a 55 equivalent - how much cropping would that represent?
> 
> Jack




I'm not sure how cropping that'd represent. Maybe 65%? You'd defiemly lose a few mega pixels by cropping on the final image but you'd be fine doing that unless you were going to make a huge print, or really punish the pixels in Photoshop imp. But for web viewing, etc. I'd have know problem cropping from 35 to 55 with that lens and the 6d.


----------



## slclick (Dec 6, 2014)

I tell you, the more and more I use this lens, the more I'm tempted to go back to a FF Zoom Trinity as my main setup (with macro as the exception) 

Very Happy!


----------



## SPL (Dec 6, 2014)

slclick said:


> I tell you, the more and more I use this lens, the more I'm tempted to go back to a FF Zoom Trinity as my main setup (with macro as the exception)
> 
> Very Happy!



+1
Yep!, I'm considering that also!


----------



## slclick (Dec 6, 2014)

SPL said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I tell you, the more and more I use this lens, the more I'm tempted to go back to a FF Zoom Trinity as my main setup (with macro as the exception)
> ...



Trouble is, I'd have to sell 2 lenses (Sigma 35, 24-105)to buy one (24-70 2.8 Mk2)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 6, 2014)

Another question. With the 16-35 and 70-200 and two bodies 6D and 7DII, how would that influence responses to my first question. I'd probably also have my 300 on the 7DII (likely purchase). Is the 16-35 kind of wasted on the 7DII (dumb question??).

It seemed on hikes that if I didn't take the 300 X2 that's precisely when the little birdies would appear. 

Jack


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 7, 2014)

Jack Douglas said:


> Another question. With the 16-35 and 70-200 and two bodies 6D and 7DII, how would that influence responses to my first question. I'd probably also have my 300 on the 7DII (likely purchase). Is the 16-35 kind of wasted on the 7DII (dumb question??).
> 
> It seemed on hikes that if I didn't take the 300 X2 that's precisely when the little birdies would appear.
> 
> Jack




I wouldn't say its a waste on the 7d2. If you want to go to your widest just put it on you 6d. You can always pick up a used 24-105 for a good price if you feel you're missing that range


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 7, 2014)

slclick said:


> My current kit has found me with the widest FL of 24 and I have been mulling over the 16-35 f/4 L IS. I have owned both the 17-40 and 2.8 16-35. Also a Zeiss 18 3.5.
> 
> I'd like to hear from those who own/owned/rented this supposedly super sharp in the center, sharp in the corners lens.
> 
> TIA


Are you expecting us to tell you something you already know? This is the best UWA for Canon. Take it as you self-Christmas gift.
I owned the 10-22, 17-40 and 16-35L II and I was never happy because the borders sharpness. This is blew them out of water


----------



## SPL (Dec 7, 2014)

slclick said:


> SPL said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



+1
I know!, I'm selling my 24-104 and a few primes to offset the cost of a 24-70 2.8 II. The 16-35 & 24-70 are awesome !


----------



## slclick (Dec 7, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > My current kit has found me with the widest FL of 24 and I have been mulling over the 16-35 f/4 L IS. I have owned both the 17-40 and 2.8 16-35. Also a Zeiss 18 3.5.
> ...



I had a hunch


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 7, 2014)

I want for nothing out of this UW.


----------



## slclick (Dec 7, 2014)

SPL said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > SPL said:
> ...



I just put both Siggies and respective filters on Amazon, just about halfway there already! Now to get that 'Street Price' on the 24-70 from Gordon at CPW


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Dec 8, 2014)

I think if I had found one on sale for like $800 in Canada I would have jumped. But instead I decided to go with the 24-70/f4 and keep my Voigtlander 20. When I had a 10-20mm on apsc I didn't really know what to do with it, and found that 20mm was really where I could "see" things. So I'm planning for travel and hiking to take the 24-70 and tuck in the tiny voigt 20 when I need to go ultra-wide. And the 70-200/f4 when I have more space.

The 16-35/f4 does sound like many people's answer though. Sounds like way more people value corner quality and IS over f2.8.


----------



## ejenner (Dec 9, 2014)

Mr_Canuck said:


> The 16-35/f4 does sound like many people's answer though. Sounds like way more people value corner quality and IS over f2.8.



Well, the people interested in the 16-35 f4 certainly. As with any lens, if you need 2.8, f4 isn't going to cut it. I honestly think the IS is a nice bonus, but most that bought it only needed f4 to start with.

Personally I can't quite figure out how to say how good this lens is, so instead I'll just say it sucks big time instead. Or perhaps just say it's not as sharp as the TS-E 24mm and doesn't have tilt/shift, nor is it as fast as the 24L and it's not as light as the 17-40.


----------

