# 16-35F4 L IS, Any good?



## Ivan Muller (Feb 19, 2015)

hi, I am keen to get the 16-35F4L zoom as a replacement for my 17-40. I have tested two copies from the store and this is what I get.

copy One, distant image of building slight softness at all apertures on left 20% compared to the right side....

Copy Two, distant image of building very definite softness on right side , sharp objects almost have a double image at all apertures , right 20% of image.

I have done numerous tests etc, copy one seems almost fine, especially compared to copy Two. I am reluctant to take it and then take it to service center and then being told that it is within specs. I have already paid for the lens but don't want to take it out of the shop until I am satisfied.

So my answer is how are owners of this lens finding them? Any other problems. I am talking about critical professional use...


----------



## gwflauto (Feb 19, 2015)

My 16-35/4 lens is excellent, from center to corner and edges, with architecture and indoors shots as well.


----------



## Eldar (Feb 19, 2015)

I have had a couple of 17-40 copies and I have had several of both the 16-35 f2.8L vI and vII. I never liked any of them. But the 16-35 f4L IS I have is simply brilliant. I actually sold my Zeiss 21mm f2.8, because the 16-35 f4L IS made it redundant. I have not heard anything but praise for this lens, so if you're not happy with the two copies you have seen, it must be something wrong somewhere in the chain.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 19, 2015)

I haven't tested mine extensively yet, but decentering is always one of the first thing a after calibration I check, and it is perfect. 

And just as a side note, I thought the TS17 was as good as it gets, but the 1635 is better. I was really surprised to see how little distortion it actually has. And the sharpness is epic across the frame.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 19, 2015)

I did a lot of tests with mine and it was perfect out of the box. I think it's an excellent lens.


----------



## TeT (Feb 19, 2015)

Ivan Muller said:


> hi, I am keen to get the 16-35F4L zoom as a replacement for my 17-40. I have tested two copies from the store and this is what I get.
> 
> copy One, distant image of building slight softness at all apertures on left 20% compared to the right side....
> 
> ...



Take neither of those copies If you are buying new.

Used, make sure they are cheap enough to cover the $400 hit from CPS (<$600)


----------



## krisbell (Feb 19, 2015)

I find it to be an excellent lens - its way sharper than my 100mm macro, though my macro has been dropped a few times! My copy worked great straight out the box so you have either been incredibly unlucky with your two copies or you have hawk-like vision to spot inconsistencies.


----------



## bitm2007 (Feb 19, 2015)

I've recently upgraded from the 17-40 L to the 16-35mm L and am delighted with the image quality of my new lens, there's an obvious sharpness differential between the two lens especially in the corners. My only gripe is that it looks cheap compared to the 17-40mm L and my 24-105mm L, due to it's larger rubber focusing and zoom rings, but if lenses visual appearance is the only thing to grumble about i'm onto a winner.


----------



## bitm2007 (Feb 19, 2015)

> hi, I am keen to get the 16-35F4L zoom as a replacement for my 17-40. I have tested two copies from the store and this is what I get.
> 
> copy One, distant image of building slight softness at all apertures on left 20% compared to the right side....
> 
> ...



To test two defective lenses with different faults is strange, very strange. The testament to the quality and consistency of this lens is pretty much unanimous across the web. I would purchase from a different stockist, it might cost a little more but it's worth it, if it means purchasing from a reputable dealer. Even if it's just for the piece of mind.


----------



## Otter (Feb 19, 2015)

I would definitely recommend the 16-35F4 L! It would be a solid step up from your 17-40. Great out of the box!


----------



## mangobutter (Feb 19, 2015)

I've been a wide angle fanatic since I've been shooting Canon DSLRs since 2005 including owning the original 5D. I've had around a dozen copies of the 17-40L (always buying/selling) I've had the 16-35 2.8II. Now the 16-35 F4.

The 16-35 F4L IS has no equal in the world particularly in the 16-24mm range, regardless of price and/or brand and/or format and/or type (zoom/prime)--yes this includes the Nikon 14-24. Even if the Nikon 14-24 can get as sharp stopped down, this lens is a perfectionist @ F4 esp @ 16mm. Canon obviously optimized this lens for F4 performance. I don't find any improvements stopping down. even beyond 24mm it is great. There is a nice contrast difference between it and other high end lenses. Blacks are blacker.

Here's one at 16mm F4, 1/10s, 2000 iso. dark church. I have it printed and at it's very sharp even at full res.


----------



## Aichbus (Feb 19, 2015)

My second copy is excellent, but my first was very soft at one side too, so obviously there are bad copies around even of this lens!


----------



## SPL (Feb 19, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I have had a couple of 17-40 copies and I have had several of both the 16-35 f2.8L vI and vII. I never liked any of them. But the 16-35 f4L IS I have is simply brilliant. I actually sold my Zeiss 21mm f2.8, because the 16-35 f4L IS made it redundant. I have not heard anything but praise for this lens, so if you're not happy with the two copies you have seen, it must be something wrong somewhere in the chain.


+1!
I also upgraded from the 17-40, which I used for many years. My copy of the 16-35 is fantastic straight out of the box….fantastic lens!


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 19, 2015)

Any good? 

It's Really Good. So good I see the 14-24mm nikkor as a m00t swithcing point now. Roger Circla also agrees that the 14-24mm seems alot less attractive now.


----------



## FEBS (Feb 19, 2015)

No, the 16-35 F/4 L IS is a great lens. Really the best purchase last year. 

I even think now to sell my 14 f/2.8 Lii and 24 f/1.4 Lii. Don't use those lenses anymore after I got the 16-35 f/4


----------



## mangobutter (Feb 19, 2015)

Agreed. The 24 1.4 formula seems to be a VERY specialized need type of lens. i'd say concerts, events etc where its low light. a 35 1.4 is more useful and i'd have one of those along side the 16-35 F4 (going to order my 2nd Sigma 35 soon) and this time don't sell it.. haha


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 19, 2015)

16-35 L is a superb lens corner to corner. Was amazed how good it was when I took it on a Disney trip late last year. It almost never left the 6D the entire time unless I needed the 70-200 IS MkII, which the 16-35 f4L is an equal to at one stop slower. If you need a wide, then this is the best you can buy. The 11-24 L looks like it will be great, but I doubt it will be optically any better than the 16-35 f4, You'll just have much bigger FOV.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2015)

Have to agree with everybody so far, it is a superb lens, it has better contrast and colour in the corners than the 17TS-E.

Do a simple test like the one below, take some time to square off your camera to the targets, I stick a small mirror on the glass and line up the reflection. If there is much deviation in corner performance than don't get it.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 20, 2015)

I was never truly satisfied with the 16-35 2.8 II, but the f4 version is noticeably better, particularly off-center. Not perfect, still some corner softness at 16mm - but apart from the loss of a stop, it's better in practically every other way. Not to mention the price is quite reasonable (by L standards). Highly recommended.


----------



## tgara (Feb 20, 2015)

My copy is outstanding.....


----------



## JonoRees (Feb 20, 2015)

Haven't thought of the new Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC?

Reviews are very good...


----------



## Chockstone (Feb 20, 2015)

All these glowing reviews of the 16-35F4 L IS are making me want to upgrade my 16-35F2.8 L II. I've a friend who wants to take it off my hands so it would be an easy swap, but I really like the F2.8 for stars and I'd rather not have the added weight of IS that I don't use with a tripod.

Has anyone heard of a mark III version of the 16-35F2.8L that brings the improved resolving power and sharper corners but without the aperture compromise?

Better yet, what happened to all those rumours of a 16-50 L zoom from a few years back? That would be an excellent range for me provided the wide end held its own with the best-in-class. I could do wide angle single shot landscapes at 16mm, then punch in tight to 50mm for stitched panos all without a lens swap - very handy when you're being hit by ocean swell or blown off the top of a peak.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

Chockstone said:


> All these glowing reviews of the 16-35F4 L IS are making me want to upgrade my 16-35F2.8 L II. I've a friend who wants to take it off my hands so it would be an easy swap, but I really like the F2.8 for stars and I'd rather not have the added weight of IS that I don't use with a tripod.
> 
> Has anyone heard of a mark III version of the 16-35F2.8L that brings the improved resolving power and sharper corners but without the aperture compromise?
> 
> Better yet, what happened to all those rumours of a 16-50 L zoom from a few years back? That would be an excellent range for me provided the wide end held its own with the best-in-class. I could do wide angle single shot landscapes at 16mm, then punch in tight to 50mm for stitched panos all without a lens swap - very handy when you're being hit by ocean swell or blown off the top of a peak.



The new 16-35 f4L isn't even a year old yet. I wouldn't hold my breath on the MkIII of the 2.8 unless they just add IS to it. Honestly I don't miss the extra stop one bit in part because of the excellent IS. Now for astro, yeah, I get it. I does make a difference. Consider ditching your mark II, getting a copy of the new f4 IS and perhaps adding a 24mm prime for astro. Might I suggest the new Sig ART 24mm f1.4? If ever start doing astro seriously, that's the lens I'm going to. The 35 and 50 ART versions are just amazing. ROkinon has a great one too at 1.4. Manual focus, but if it's for astro, who cares.


----------



## pwp (Feb 20, 2015)

I've never felt 100% happy with my 16-35 f/2.8L MkII. It's fine I guess, no better stopped down than my old 17-40 f/4 which I might just as well have kept.

Photographers in this thread who have gone from the 16-35 f/2.8L MkII to the 16-35 f/4is seem happy enough. Is it just a case of validating a latest purchase or does the new lens seriously leave the 16-35 f/2.8L MkII gasping for respectability?

-pw


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

pwp said:


> I've never felt 100% happy with my 16-35 f/2.8L MkII. It's fine I guess, no better stopped down than my old 17-40 f/4 which I might just as well have kept.
> 
> Photographers in this thread who have gone from the 16-35 f/2.8L MkII to the 16-35 f/4is seem happy enough. Is it just a case of validating a latest purchase or does the new lens seriously leave the 16-35 f/2.8L MkII gasping for respectability?
> 
> -pw



It's pretty serious, yeah. Center frame, we can debate. But corners? No. It's not even remotely arguable. And being a wide, it's a focal range used largely for landscape photography and thus demands the best edge to edge you can get. That said, I find when shooting landscapes, you're stopping down to f8-ish or smaller anyway so who cares about 2.8 vs 4. That said, I have repeatedly shot this glass wide open at f4 and the results are just amazing regardless. If you have the need and the means, get the lens. You won't be disappointed or find yourself in a pixel peeping quandary over this vs the 2.8 MkII


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

And I'll add this:

I have taken comparison shots with this one at 35mm against my 35 Sig ART prime, both at f4. I'll be damned if I can really find much difference. Granted the Sig is a different lens for a different purpose with 3 extra stops, but when apples to apples, the new 16-35 is crazy good


----------



## JDS (Feb 20, 2015)

Can anyone please post sunburst shots of the 16-35 F4 at f16 or f22? I want to see how it stacks up to that of the 2.8 II version


----------



## Ivan Muller (Feb 20, 2015)

Thanks all, I hope to get a good copy soon! My intention with upgrading from the 17-40 is because I want to get the new nifty fifty when its release and I release that for that to make any sense I need the best lenses. My weak point so far has been the 17-40...so I am off now to test again....the 40. 85f1.8. 24tS, 100macro and 70-300L are all very nice and sharp so I am sure they will work fine with the fifty. I am probably more picky than most but I do photography for a living and I also have a 44inch printer so image quality is very important for me...BTW I tested 3-4 copies of the 24TS before I was sort of happy. The dealer is very well known and respected over here and have been quite accommodating so far....so we will see


----------



## donn (Feb 20, 2015)

I had 17-40mm F4, used it for almost 5 years, was satisfied with it and thought an upgrade wouldn't justify the extra cash. I heard about the 16-35mm F4 IS and it's good review and decided to buy it. After buying it and trying it, all I could say was, WOW and WHY didn't upgrade earlier. The glass is great, sharp and produces fantastic images!


----------



## bitm2007 (Feb 20, 2015)

> The dealer is very well known and respected over here and have been quite accommodating so far....so we will see



Good to hear, sounds like you've just been extremely unlucky.



> I want to get the new nifty fifty when its released and I release that for that to make any sense I need the best lenses.



I'm assuming you mean the new 50MP 5DS camera's when they are released (not nifty fifty 50mm lens). I've got four zoom L lenses the 16-35 f4, 17-40mm f4, 24-105mm f4 and 70-300 f4-5.6. The 16-35 f4 is the only one that i'm true confidence in, to handle the increased resolution. It's that good a lens, time will tell.


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 20, 2015)

bitm2007 said:


> I've got four zoom L lenses the 16-35 f4, 17-40mm f4, 24-105mm f4 and 70-300 f4-5.6. The 16-35 f4 is the only one that i'm true confidence in, to handle the increased resolution. It's that good a lens, time will tell.



Will you be keeping the 17-40 or has the 16-35 f/4 made that redundant?

I must say that the 16-35 f/4 is getting a lot of praise, I think I will get one for myself next month.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Feb 20, 2015)

Hey all,

From all of the + reception I too am thinking of upgrading,-replacing the 17-40 4L, but two things stop me:
1. My 24 1.4 covers the event/low-light/art photography;
2. When going wide and not using the 24 1.4, I am on a tripod stopped down and the 17-40 is fine (and has goes all the way to 40mm!).

So the only time I would consider it is if the "16-35F4 L IS" replaced the 24 1.4 too? And in my book it does not. However, if I didn't already own the 17-40 first, I would definitely get the 16-35 IS over canon's other wide zooms.

P.S. Donn, that lovely picture of Bergen could almost be taken from my living room window! Whenever I am on my fjellveien jog (often at night) this city feels even more special than it already is.


----------



## bitm2007 (Feb 20, 2015)

> Will you be keeping the 17-40 or has the 16-35 f/4 made that redundant?
> 
> I must say that the 16-35 f/4 is getting a lot of praise, I think I will get one for myself next month.



It's been made redundant. I'm planning to list the 17-40mm on ebay, but since the release of the 16-35 f/4 theirs site has been awash with them, here in the UK. So i'm biding my time in the hope that it will make better money in the future.


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 20, 2015)

bitm2007 said:


> > Will you be keeping the 17-40 or has the 16-35 f/4 made that redundant?
> >
> > I must say that the 16-35 f/4 is getting a lot of praise, I think I will get one for myself next month.
> 
> ...



Thanks, I thought you might say that. Will definitely be getting a 16-35 f/4 now.


----------



## donn (Feb 20, 2015)

AE-1Burnham said:


> Hey all,
> 
> From all of the + reception I too am thinking of upgrading,-replacing the 17-40 4L, but two things stop me:
> 1. My 24 1.4 covers the event/low-light/art photography;
> ...



 Nothing to hate about Bergen except for Brann.  17-40mm is a great lens, especially stopped down. what triggered me other than the corner sharpness to get the 16-35 F4 is the IS. There are times I dont bring with me a tripod.


----------



## bitm2007 (Feb 20, 2015)

> When going wide and not using the 24 1.4, I am on a tripod stopped down and the 17-40 is fine.



I thought the 17-40mm was fine stopped down on a tripod, until I purchased the 16-35mm and released how much sharper it is (especially in the corners). 

I would upgrade the 17-40mm and keep 24 1.4 for event/low-light/art photography. Then sell the 17-40mm on ebay etc.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Feb 20, 2015)

Hi Bitm,

I think I need to rent the 16-35 IS! Your words are encouraging.

Cheers


----------



## Coldhands (Feb 20, 2015)

JDS said:


> Can anyone please post sunburst shots of the 16-35 F4 at f16 or f22? I want to see how it stacks up to that of the 2.8 II version



I love a good starburst, and this lens does not disappoint:



Ice Ridge II by colin|whittaker, on Flickr

Even at f/11 it gives nice bursts (look to the lamp on the right):



Untitled by colin|whittaker, on Flickr


----------



## bitm2007 (Feb 20, 2015)

> Hi Bitm,
> 
> I think I need to rent the 16-35 IS! Your words are encouraging.
> 
> Cheers



With the exception of one post who got a dud, everyone who replied to this thread has given it a glowing reference. So I doubt you will be disappointed. 

I read numerous glowing website reviews before purchasing and found sites like lens tips, who test lenses at varying apertures and focal lengths extremely useful. Links to their resolution charts for both the 16-35mm f4 and 17-40m f4 are below.

http://www.lenstip.com/411.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_16-35_mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Image_resolution.html

http://www.lenstip.com/4.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_17-40_mm_f_4.0L_USM_Image_resolution.html


----------



## JDS (Feb 20, 2015)

Coldhands said:


> JDS said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone please post sunburst shots of the 16-35 F4 at f16 or f22? I want to see how it stacks up to that of the 2.8 II version
> ...



Great shots! Thanks for posting these, I think I've now made up my mind to get this lens.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Feb 20, 2015)

Well here is one shot from many tests doen today...24mmm at f8. The shops 6D camera, mirror lift, Af on, 2sec self timer and IS off...very weird oof pattern...

The intensity and size of the oof area on the right of the horizontal photos vary between close and distant shots and of course apertures and focal length...but at best it seems slight soft on right at 16mm and at worst its like the sample enclosed here....

Moral is test before you buy!


----------



## Jane (Feb 20, 2015)

Ivan, thanks for this thread; it was very helpful. I had the 16-35 f2.8 and now have the version II but I don't really use it as it doesn't excite me. I see a trade in the near future. Thanks to everyone else who contributed on the 16-35 f4.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 20, 2015)

This lens is next on my list to replace my 17-40, which I shall be selling to part fund it! The IS will certainly help increase it's overall usefulness in low light.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 20, 2015)

I bought the 16-35mm F/4 IS last year and never looked back. The IS is crazy, I didn't think I'd use it much on a wide-angle lens, but I've been going out to shoot landscapes in the blue hour after sunset and I haven't even had to use my tripod. I get my tripod out of my car and carry it to my location, and then end up pulling my camera off it and getting creative with my angles. To be able to shoot at 1/2 of a second handheld at 16mm and still get sharp photos without a tripod is truly freeing, and you don't have to worry about adjusting your tripod or repositioning for the next shot. 

You can get much better photos out of the 16-35mm F/4 IS just because you won't need to use a tripod nearly as often. The IS keeps the frame steady and makes composing handheld a lot easier. Plus, the angles you can find when you're not attached to a tripod can make some really interesting results.

And all of that's ignoring the absolutely stellar image quality-- I'd say it's in leagues with my 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

Here's what impresses me most about this lens. It's about as good wide open as it is stopped down. The corners don't have much improvement because there's not much better they can be even at f4.

#1) Beast's Castle (Magic Kingdom, Disneyworld) 
@16mm, Wide open at f4. ISO 100. 3/4 second exposure. Tabletop tripod. IS disengaged. Remote trigger. Canon 6D

People move, so don't go by the bottom of the frame. Look at the edges of the ceiling. Granted it's a 1MB scaled down JPG file from the RAW original.

#2) Waterfalls a the Maelstrom in Epcot, Disneyworld.
@16mm, f11, ISO 100, 15 sec exposure. 10 Stop ND Filter + BW Kassemann Cir Pol (Appx 2 more stops of ND) IS disengaged. Manfrotto tripod. Remote trigger. Canon 6D


----------



## jhaces (Feb 20, 2015)

Aww, you guys! Just when I was so sure to get the f2.8L everyone on the internet says that the f4L IS absolutely blows it out of the water.  Back to the drawing board (do I really need IS? is the 1-stop DOF very noticeable?)  :'(


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

jhaces said:


> Aww, you guys! Just when I was so sure to get the f2.8L everyone on the internet says that the f4L IS absolutely blows it out of the water.  Back to the drawing board (do I really need IS? is the 1-stop DOF very noticeable?)  :'(



One stop on a wide? No. I know, I know.... there are some people on here who will argue how the extra stop saved this shot and blah blah. But with IS, your extra 1 stop is largely mitigated ESPECIALLY on a wide. Why? Because the DOF on a wide lens is already comparably huge to say a 50mm or other standard focal length. 2.8 to 4 is not going to be a load of difference on a wide unless you're shooting a lot of things very close up with it. Most people are looking at this focal length for landscapes where your focus will tend to favor points farther from the sensor plane than they will closer, making DOF even less a problem. So again, I'll tout the "Get the lens with the BEST edge to edge sharpness when hunting for a wide" opinion. If you really want shallow DOF for effect, then shooting a wide zoom like these isn't what you want anyway. a 24mm 1.4 prime would probably better suit you.


----------



## gqllc007 (Feb 20, 2015)

I returned my 16-35 2.8L for the 16-35 F/4IS and thrilled that I did. I find the F/4IS to have better IQ and sharpness


----------



## jhaces (Feb 20, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> If you really want shallow DOF for effect, then shooting a wide zoom like these isn't what you want anyway. a 24mm 1.4 prime would probably better suit you.


Yeah, I was thinking more about the 1 stop in terms of speed, to be honest. Subject isolation is hard at that fdistance. And for what I read, the IS on this one is a beast. I guess I was already pretty sold on the f4, perhaps my last hurdle is just plain old "waaaaah but-but-but the other lens goes all the way to 2.8! :'( "

Sorry, GAS makes me irrational


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 21, 2015)

This was the first serious lens I bought that wasn't 2.8 or faster .... I thought the SAME thing. I don't miss the stop one bit. You won't either


----------



## mpphoto (Feb 21, 2015)

JDS said:


> Can anyone please post sunburst shots of the 16-35 F4 at f16 or f22? I want to see how it stacks up to that of the 2.8 II version


Here is an example at f/16. I think this will be my go-to lens for car shows.

I find the 16-35mm f/4 to be sharper at the edges than my 17-40mm. I enjoyed my 17-40mm, but now I have a hard time justifying keeping it. I thought I would miss the extra 5mm at the long end, but I don't. Now to sell my 17-40mm. Too bad it sounds like the prices have taken a hit since people are switching to the 16-35mm f/4.


----------



## bitm2007 (Feb 21, 2015)

> Aww, you guys! Just when I was so sure to get the f2.8L everyone on the internet says that the f4L IS absolutely blows it out of the water.  Back to the drawing board (do I really need IS? is the 1-stop DOF very noticeable?)  :'(
> 
> One stop on a wide? No. I know, I know.... there are some people on here who will argue how the extra stop saved this shot and blah blah. But with IS, your extra 1 stop is largely mitigated ESPECIALLY on a wide. Why? Because the DOF on a wide lens is already comparably huge to say a 50mm or other standard focal length. 2.8 to 4 is not going to be a load of difference on a wide unless you're shooting a lot of things very close up with it. Most people are looking at this focal length for landscapes where your focus will tend to favor points farther from the sensor plane than they will closer, making DOF even less a problem. So again, I'll tout the "Get the lens with the BEST edge to edge sharpness when hunting for a wide" opinion. If you really want shallow DOF for effect, then shooting a wide zoom like these isn't what you want anyway. a 24mm 1.4 prime would probably better suit you.



Specking from a pro landscaper's prospective, extreme low lighting situations is where the extra stop of light is most likely to be missed. Landscape's that include the Milky Way are regularly shot with wide angle lenses, wide open at high ISO's, the extra stop would mean capturing images at say ISO 6400 rather than ISO 3200, which obviously has a knock on effect on noise levels in images where it is already problematic.


----------



## infared (Feb 21, 2015)

I sold my f/2.8 to buy my f/4. (Even trade for a better lens!...that never happens.). No looking back...If you have used both you just put one down and use the other because it's so much better. I know that I did! 8)


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 21, 2015)

bitm2007 said:


> > Aww, you guys! Just when I was so sure to get the f2.8L everyone on the internet says that the f4L IS absolutely blows it out of the water.  Back to the drawing board (do I really need IS? is the 1-stop DOF very noticeable?)  :'(
> >
> > One stop on a wide? No. I know, I know.... there are some people on here who will argue how the extra stop saved this shot and blah blah. But with IS, your extra 1 stop is largely mitigated ESPECIALLY on a wide. Why? Because the DOF on a wide lens is already comparably huge to say a 50mm or other standard focal length. 2.8 to 4 is not going to be a load of difference on a wide unless you're shooting a lot of things very close up with it. Most people are looking at this focal length for landscapes where your focus will tend to favor points farther from the sensor plane than they will closer, making DOF even less a problem. So again, I'll tout the "Get the lens with the BEST edge to edge sharpness when hunting for a wide" opinion. If you really want shallow DOF for effect, then shooting a wide zoom like these isn't what you want anyway. a 24mm 1.4 prime would probably better suit you.
> 
> ...



Well, sure... but if you're really trying to shoot for astro (as we mentioned earlier) 2.8 is still too slow. You can still do it, yes....but I'm reaching for f1.4 if I'm shooting sky. That new Sig 24mm 1.4 will sell like crazy for it. I really don't think a major intended purpose of either Canon wide zoom is really astro.


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2015)

Except for specialized shooting situations, I have yet to find anyone who isn't at the very least satisfied with the 16-35 f/4L. Lenses like this don't come along very often.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 21, 2015)

slclick said:


> Except for specialized shooting situations, I have yet to find anyone who isn't at the very least satisfied with the 16-35 f/4L. Lenses like this don't come along very often.



+1, it's REALLY good. I notice a slightly lower hitrate in my indoor shots when tracking, I guess because of the f4. But I would use the 2470 there anyway. Went out with it for the first time today and it's fantastic!

I was too close and my son kicked the lens/camera and gave me a black eye, but it wasn't even a scratch on the gear.

A split second after the hit, shot at 1/1000s.


----------



## RGF (Feb 21, 2015)

gwflauto said:


> My 16-35/4 lens is excellent, from center to corner and edges, with architecture and indoors shots as well.



I have much happier with mine that I was with the 16-35 F2.8 II. Plus NO 82mm filters


----------



## e_honda (Feb 21, 2015)

jhaces said:


> Aww, you guys! Just when I was so sure to get the f2.8L everyone on the internet says that the f4L IS absolutely blows it out of the water.  Back to the drawing board (do I really need IS? is the 1-stop DOF very noticeable?)  :'(



You're not going to be getting a very shallow depth of field at these focal lengths, anyways. The IS would trump the usefulness of f/2.8 in most cases. 

If you must have f/2.8, get the Tokina 16-28. It's easily sharper than the Canon f/2.8 II and can be had for less than half the price! I had one and it was easily sharper than 2 copies of the Canon f/2.8 II had (which is also notorious for a high degree of copy-copy variation). It's image quality is close to that of the F/4 IS. Its only weaknesses are that it's heavier, doesn't take conventional filters and is prone to flare.

Tokina made a very underrated lens, but it made no sense for me to keep it after I got the Canon f/4 IS.


----------



## bitm2007 (Feb 21, 2015)

> Well, sure... but if you're really trying to shoot for astro (as we mentioned earlier) 2.8 is still too slow. You can still do it, yes....but I'm reaching for f1.4 if I'm shooting sky. That new Sig 24mm 1.4 will sell like crazy for it. I really don't think a major intended purpose of either Canon wide zoom is really astro



True and the 16-35mm f4 complimented by a fast prime is the option I've opted for, but primes aren't to everybody's taste. If you prefer zooms f2.8 is the fastest option available for full frame camera's.


----------



## infared (Feb 21, 2015)

Shot this one this morning...it was a little brisk out there (7 degrees F!....and a wave splashed me!!!!)


----------



## slclick (Feb 22, 2015)

infared said:


> Shot this one this morning...it was a little brisk out there (7 degrees F!....and a wave splashed me!!!!)



Very nice infared, love the grays and blues


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 22, 2015)

Don't think twice. I would definitely recommend the 16-35mm f/4L IS! It would be a solid step up from your 17-40. My copy is sharp edge-to-edge. By the way my body is a Canon 5D3


----------



## Viggo (Feb 23, 2015)

I noticed in the manual that the 4 stops of stabilizing is when the lens is at 35mm and mounted to a 1dx. Is that because of the higher battery power that it has a more efficient stabilizer on the 1dx?


----------



## JDS (Feb 26, 2015)

mpphoto said:


> JDS said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone please post sunburst shots of the 16-35 F4 at f16 or f22? I want to see how it stacks up to that of the 2.8 II version
> ...



Thanks for this. I also own the 17-40 right now and planning to get the 16-35 f4. I read somewhere that the build is not as robust as that of the 16-35 f2.8 version. Is this true?


----------



## Viggo (Feb 26, 2015)

JDS said:


> mpphoto said:
> 
> 
> > JDS said:
> ...



My wife's 100 L, my 2470 and 1635 are all made of the same plastic, and they have seen some pretty bad abuse, see picture on previous page of my son. And none of these lenses are scarred at all.
And Roger at Lens Rentals said the new 16-35 in particular along with the 100-400 II are much better built than the previous 1635/1740 and the old 100-400.

So no, it's not true it's poorer built.


----------



## bwud (Mar 1, 2015)

JDS said:


> Can anyone please post sunburst shots of the 16-35 F4 at f16 or f22? I want to see how it stacks up to that of the 2.8 II version



Split the difference? f/20.


----------



## e_honda (Mar 1, 2015)

JDS said:


> Thanks for this. I also own the 17-40 right now and planning to get the 16-35 f4. I read somewhere that the build is not as robust as that of the 16-35 f2.8 version. Is this true?



Slightly less so, but nothing major. It's still very solidly constructed. The zoom ring has a nice, tight resistance to it. It also has the advantage of taking 77mm filters instead of 82mm like the f2.8 II.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 1, 2015)

e_honda said:


> JDS said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for this. I also own the 17-40 right now and planning to get the 16-35 f4. I read somewhere that the build is not as robust as that of the 16-35 f2.8 version. Is this true?
> ...



In what way? I'd venture my 16-35 f4 is every bit as robust, indeed more so, than my old 16-35 f2.8 ever was. Any empirical evidence to back up your hunches? Because this tear down seems to have the opposite opinion. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/of-course-we-took-one-apart


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 2, 2015)

no disrespect about this lens im sure its pretty good, but from reading all the pointers im sure they are honest opinions but I never saw this kind of feed back when the 17-40 vs the 16-35 2.8 most people praised the 16-35 2.8 even thous landscape photogs used f7 -f22 not really f2.8. maybe i missed something but all i see is just marketing hype and it could be just a mind thing. the 17-40 has always bin a pretty good landscape lens in it's class for the price.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 2, 2015)

AshtonNekolah said:


> no disrespect about this lens im sure its pretty good, but from reading all the pointers im sure they are honest opinions but I never saw this kind of feed back when the 17-40 vs the 16-35 2.8 most people praised the 16-35 2.8 even thous landscape photogs used f7 -f22 not really f2.8. maybe i missed something but all i see is just marketing hype and it could be just a mind thing. the 17-40 has always bin a pretty good landscape lens in it's class for the price.



From an image quality perspective the 16-35mm f4 L IS has set a new benchmark for ultra wide performance, zoom or prime.

I hate over the top sentiment and hyperbole that normally flows from people who are trying to mitigate their buyers remorse, I am also not a first adopter. Indeed I owned the 16-35 f2.8 MkI since it came out and when I tested it against a MkII I didn't see enough of a performance increase to upgrade. 

When I got the 16-35 f4 L IS I immediately tested it against another world class Canon ultrawide, the 17 TS-E prime, the 16-35 f4 L IS blows the 17 TS-E away for resolution detail and contrast, the only thing it doesn't do as well (apart from tilt and shift, but it does zoom!) is distortion, but lets be honest, distortion in a centered projection is very simple to remove.

The 16-35 f4 L IS is the best performing ultrawide zoom made by anybody anywhere at any price, it also outperforms most primes at the same focal lengths. Now the new 11-24 might go to 11 better, and it's performance is on a par with the 16-35 f4 L IS at 24mm, but even $3,000 doesn't buy you 'better' image quality.


----------



## candc (Mar 2, 2015)

I haven't read through the entire thread so I apologize if I am repeating what has been posted. Pretty much everyone who uses the lens for what it is designed for loves it. It's sharp wide open, It has "is" which is great for handholding water shots and such. It has great color and contrast. Its a very reasonable price so not much purchase justification needed and it takes filters. It is really a wonderful general purpose landscape lens.


----------



## e_honda (Mar 2, 2015)

AshtonNekolah said:


> no disrespect about this lens im sure its pretty good, but from reading all the pointers im sure they are honest opinions but I never saw this kind of feed back when the 17-40 vs the 16-35 2.8 most people praised the 16-35 2.8 even thous landscape photogs used f7 -f22 not really f2.8. maybe i missed something but all i see is just marketing hype and it could be just a mind thing. the 17-40 has always bin a pretty good landscape lens in it's class for the price.



I don't have bias, I just want the best lens for landscape and I think this right now is it.

I had 2 copies of the 16-35 f2.8 II. I coveted that lens for awhile, found a good deal on one, wasn't happy with the copy, and then found a better copy. I wanted to like it, but it just wasn't that good. I got a Tokina 16-28 brand new for far less money and sold the 16-36 II. It was easily sharper than the Canon. I used the Tokina for nearly 2 years and some of my best photos were taken with it.

But I wasn't happy with the flare/ghosting and its weight/bulbous front element made it unwieldy and it didn't take filters. So when the 16-35 F4 IS came out, I was immediately intrigued and pulled the trigger when I found a great deal.

This new Canon matches or slightly exceeds the Tokina in sharpness, has IS, is lighter and easier to handle and accepts filter. It cost more and isn't f2.8, but those are tradeoffs I'm willing to make for its advantages. I couldn't be happier.

If the new Tamron 15-30 proves to be better in anyway, then I will have to consider that as well because I love working with this focal range.


----------



## Ruined (Mar 2, 2015)

IMO the 16-35 f/4L IS is the ultimate practical lens for someone who enjoys landscape photography. Yes, the 16-35 f/2.8L II is better for event photography and the 11-24 f/4L is wider for landscape but much more costly, huge, no IS, and can't take front filters.

So I think for most, the 16-35 f/4L IS simply makes the most sense as*the* landscape lens for most users. It is even great for real estate. As long as one of these is your primary usage the 16-35mm f/4L IS makes the most sense.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 2, 2015)

Thanks for that info, Ill have to rent a copy and check this out, I also like the TSE 17mm for keeping lines straight in buildings and for the shifting, do you guys think that is a good thing? Ill have to rent them both and see which one is for me.


----------



## Ruined (Mar 3, 2015)

AshtonNekolah said:


> Thanks for that info, Ill have to rent a copy and check this out, I also like the TSE 17mm for keeping lines straight in buildings and for the shifting, do you guys think that is a good thing? Ill have to rent them both and see which one is for me.



It is, but a couple of downsides over 16-35 f/4L
-Cost
-Bulbous element more susceptible to damage
-No front filter support
-Only one focal length
-No IS

On the plus side, yes you can correct lines, etc - but then again that requires a tripod and intricate adjustments. Do you want to commit that much time to each shot?


----------



## Ruined (Mar 3, 2015)

FEBS said:


> No, the 16-35 F/4 L IS is a great lens. Really the best purchase last year.
> 
> I even think now to sell my 14 f/2.8 Lii and 24 f/1.4 Lii. Don't use those lenses anymore after I got the 16-35 f/4



I'd agree on the 14 f/2.8L II because the usage would be very niche when you have a 16-35 f/4L unless you *really* needed 14mm or f/2.8 at 14mm. But how often is that the case?

The 24 f/1.4L II I would reconsider though. While it is true the 16-35 f/4L likely bests it for landscape, the 24 f/1.4L II with its wide angle and wide aperture open up some commonly useful creative possibilities not possible on the 16-35 f/4L such as subject isolation or stopping motion in a tight space. And it is still possible to get a mostly undistorted people image at 24mm if you keep the subject near the center of the frame. If you don't feel those possibilities are worth $1200, on the other hand, it might be worth selling.

Personally though, I think the 16-35mm f/4L IS and the 24mm f/1.4L II actually make a great pair. 16-35 f/4L for landscape and 24 f/1.4L II for environmental portrait/wide motion stopping/shallow DOF.


----------



## candc (Mar 3, 2015)

AshtonNekolah said:


> Thanks for that info, Ill have to rent a copy and check this out, I also like the TSE 17mm for keeping lines straight in buildings and for the shifting, do you guys think that is a good thing? Ill have to rent them both and see which one is for me.



I don't have a ts lens. You can do perspective correction with software. There is a benefit from being able to shift the focal plane but not enough of a benefit to justify all the fiddling to me. The ts-17 is pretty much tripod only, manual focus and it doesn't take normal filters.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 3, 2015)

for the TSE 17mm I can get the proportions down pretty fast I dont mind the tripod at all, yes i saw the software correction but there is a draw back I also notice when I did some shots, if it was done with the TSE 17mm the big gaps will be corrected. Actually the software is mimicking the TSE Lens correction but being that wide angles dont shift like that there will be gaps. and Lee has a adapter filter for it, you guys could check it out, it's not cheep however but it's available on ebay. Ill see what goes when im done testing, if i do choose to get the TSE ill just keep what i got and get that instead. Thanks again for the replies.


----------



## ReggieABrown (Mar 3, 2015)

Has anyone tried this 16-35 f4 IS lens on an apsc camera? If so, how good is it on apsc? I've looked at image tested done by "the digital picture .com" where they did the lens image quality test using the 7d Mark ii and the images looked pretty damn good at all focal lengths tested. I know many will say consider the 17-55 for apsc, but I plan on moving to full frame in the summer and I want a lens in the range of 16-35 that I can use on both full frame and apsc. And I want to avoid the whole buy and sell thing as much as possible, as I have been very unsuccessful at every selling a lens. Please help as I am seriously considering buying this lens when my Canon rebate come in.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 3, 2015)

AshtonNekolah said:


> for the TSE 17mm I can get the proportions down pretty fast I dont mind the tripod at all, yes i saw the software correction but there is a draw back I also notice when I did some shots, if it was done with the TSE 17mm the big gaps will be corrected. Actually the software is mimicking the TSE Lens correction but being that wide angles dont shift like that there will be gaps. and Lee has a adapter filter for it, you guys could check it out, it's not cheep however but it's available on ebay. Ill see what goes when im done testing, if i do choose to get the TSE ill just keep what i got and get that instead. Thanks again for the replies.



The Fotodiox Wonderpana system is a much better filter solution for the 17TS-E than the Lee system.


----------



## candc (Mar 3, 2015)

ReggieABrown said:


> Has anyone tried this 16-35 f4 IS lens on an apsc camera? If so, how good is it on apsc? I've looked at image tested done by "the digital picture .com" where they did the lens image quality test using the 7d Mark ii and the images looked pretty damn good at all focal lengths tested. I know many will say consider the 17-55 for apsc, but I plan on moving to full frame in the summer and I want a lens in the range of 16-35 that I can use on both full frame and apsc. And I want to avoid the whole buy and sell thing as much as possible, as I have been very unsuccessful at every selling a lens. Please help as I am seriously considering buying this lens when my Canon rebate come in.



It is good on a crop body but there are better options for the format in that range like the sigma 18-35. It is sharper wide open at f/1.8 than the canon is at f/4. The sigma will work on ff but only on the long end so if you need the full range with both formats then get the canon. If you want the best iq on your crop body then get the sigma.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 3, 2015)

candc said:


> ReggieABrown said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone tried this 16-35 f4 IS lens on an apsc camera? If so, how good is it on apsc? I've looked at image tested done by "the digital picture .com" where they did the lens image quality test using the 7d Mark ii and the images looked pretty damn good at all focal lengths tested. I know many will say consider the 17-55 for apsc, but I plan on moving to full frame in the summer and I want a lens in the range of 16-35 that I can use on both full frame and apsc. And I want to avoid the whole buy and sell thing as much as possible, as I have been very unsuccessful at every selling a lens. Please help as I am seriously considering buying this lens when my Canon rebate come in.
> ...



No it isn't http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=854&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 unless you are only looking at the corners, the Canon is sharper in the center and it is a wash in the middle, and they are very close at f4 too which is a surprise as the Sigma should get noticeably better, http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=854&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

Of course the main difference is the Canon works very well on FF at every focal length, where it's true potential is realised http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## candc (Mar 3, 2015)

i wouldn't say that if i did not compare them myself. i did that on a 70d and found the sigma to be significantly better. not just pixel peeping but it was noticeable at full size. in fact the sigma on a 70d is comparable to the the canon on a 5diii, and the sigma is f/1.8 which is really important on a crop body.


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 3, 2015)

candc said:


> i wouldn't say that if i did not compare them myself. i did that on a 70d and found the sigma to be significantly better. not just pixel peeping but it was noticeable at full size. in fact the sigma on a 70d is comparable to the the canon on a 5diii, and the sigma is f/1.8 which is really important on a crop body.



You may want to refer instead to Roger Cicala's tests. They are more credible since he's using more samples than anyone can afford.


----------



## candc (Mar 3, 2015)

verysimplejason said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > i wouldn't say that if i did not compare them myself. i did that on a 70d and found the sigma to be significantly better. not just pixel peeping but it was noticeable at full size. in fact the sigma on a 70d is comparable to the the canon on a 5diii, and the sigma is f/1.8 which is really important on a crop body.
> ...



i don't need to, as i said i did the comparison myself. but just for the sake of argument: does roger say that the canon is sharper on a crop body than the sigma?


----------



## ReggieABrown (Jun 14, 2015)

For anyone interested, I did a "review" of this lens on an apsc camera...the 7d mark ii.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ_7MPETbGw


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 23, 2015)

I'm already planning on selling mine if a new 16-35mm 2.8 from Canon is released.

As much as I love this for a "fun" lens, I guess I had to purchase an f/4 to really KNOW, deep down in my bones, how much I NEED f/2.8.

Great for an f/4 though! And the IS just adds to the sharpness.

Still, I see this focal length primarily, for me, as an event (including weddings, christenings, anything in tents during the day) lens, and the loss of an f/stop limits its usefulness.


----------

