# Canon 16-35 F4 Review vs. 17-40 Shootout



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 24, 2014)

Hey guys,

As an amateur landscape photographer I was excited to get my hands on one of the first copies of the 16-35 F4. I've been collecting image results ever since, and I recently wrote a Canon 16-35 F4 Review and uploaded 35.7GB of images captured with the 16-35 F4, mainly landscape and travel photographs, with quite a few optical performance tests side-by-side's with the 17-40.

*1. Start by* downloading this RAW file and applying Auto Tone in Lightroom (Command + U), zoom in 100%: https://app.box.com/shared/static/grhe17w7q5varoulpsln.arw (35MB)
*2. Click here to read the full review:* http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/

As a Nikon 14-24 and Canon 17-40 shooter I like that this lens has IS, but if there was a non-IS version I'd get that one. It has less CA than both the 14-24 and the 17-40, based on my copies. It's also sharper than both at the corners, but performs similar on center sharpness. Interestingly enough the 17-40 actually resolved sharper on center sharpness on some of my tests, but performed softer on corners on about 75% of the images. CA performance on the 16-35 F4 outpaces both of these lenses by a wide margin.

A majority of the photographs I shot on the Sony A7R and my 5D3/6D. On the A7R the files are coming out incredibly clean and sharp. If Canon is ramping their lineup for high-resolution mirrorless sensors this lens proves they are ready for that future lineup today.

*The Good*

Critically sharp throughout the frame
Outstanding CA performance - best on any wide-angle zoom I've used
Great weather-sealing, same as other L-lenses I own
Great AF - again, same as my other USM lenses
 2 to 3-stops of real-world IS is useful, and I can see the usefulness for travel and landscape without a tripod - higher F-numbers and lower ISOs with IS than otherwise possible
Larger and smoother focusing ring than 17-40 - higher threshold for IN FOCUS and OUT OF FOCUS making it faster
I'm a complete amateur at video too, but in my video tests the IS performed very well, less jittery. Great for handing off to post-processing IS as found in FCPX and other apps
Uses 77mm thread size

*The Bad*

Physically larger than 17-40
Inclusion of IS makes it noticeably heavier than the 17-40
1 to 2-stops of light falloff inherent without any UV filter at all. Filters with a frame thickness of 4mm or higher add 1-stop of light falloff, filters with 6mm+ add 2.
Lens hood extends beyond end of lens when on backwards, so can't use it on conjunction with GND holder like the 17-40. Small thing, but I liked doing this to protect the focusing ring from elements



















Here's an image I wanted to share based on it's CA and sharpness performance:

Click here for the TIFF: https://app.box.com/shared/static/cl9z1d2h4flsyju22s9k.tif (206.9MB .TIFF)
Click here for the RAW: https://app.box.com/shared/static/44iyijt80o6nm72qkozt.arw (35.1MB .ARW)
Click here for the hi-res JPEG: https://app.box.com/shared/static/7ydhorubh7xe67kmp2b0.jpg

*Olympic Sunset Sunset - 129s - F18 - ISO 100 - 24mm - Canon 16-35 F4 with A7R*





There's very slight CA on the distant ridge lines, but it's consistently well controlled and is much less pronounced than my 14-24 and 17-40





Sharpness detail is excellent on this lens, similar to my 17-40 on center subjects, but with much less CA





Even on corners this thing performs very well, both in terms of sharpness and CA





If you guys have any questions about the lens let me know, I'll do my best to answer them!

Graham


----------



## bgran8 (Sep 25, 2014)

How is the 16-35 f4 at f11 compared to the 17-40? That seems to be the sharpest aperture on the 17-40 and where I typically set the lens for my landscapes. I'm just wondering if there is much to gain by upgrading. Thanks.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 25, 2014)

bgran8 said:


> How is the 16-35 f4 at f11 compared to the 17-40? That seems to be the sharpest aperture on the 17-40 and where I typically set the lens for my landscapes. I'm just wondering if there is much to gain by upgrading. Thanks.



At what focal length?

Graham


----------



## bgran8 (Sep 26, 2014)

I am typically in the 17-24 range, but do go to 40 occasionally.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 26, 2014)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> * Physically larger than 17-40
> * Inclusion of IS makes it noticeably heavier than the 17-40



Thanks for the balanced impressions! I'd replace my 17-40L if I had the money lying around, but one question since you've been shooting with both alongside:

_Does the 35-40mm range make a difference in real life?_ With my current 17-40L (on ff) I feel I can use it as a short standard lens ... barely, because 40mm is very short, but the distortion vs. the "normal" 50mm isn't that noticeable. I imagine the long end being just 35mm only makes the 16-35L usable as a dedicated (u)wa lens, or am I mistaken?

+1 for both points in favor of the old model, while of course outdated makes an amazingly light and small package when combined with a 6d. So if people on a budget get hold of a cheap 17-40L, imho it's still a good lens esp. stopped down to f8.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 26, 2014)

pbr9 said:


> It doesn't seems much bigger than the 17-40mm. A bit longer yes, but diameter, and overall impression is the same, just a bit longer. The lens hood seems more convenient than the 17-40mm petal hood. The reason i asked about the IS is that i'm not entirely sure about its effectiveness, so if anyone has any remarks about this it would be great to have some kind of reference point to compare with, but overall it's a significant improvement over the 17-40mm by far.



IS is actually quite helpful. 35/4 with IS allowed me to handhold up to 1/4-1/8s with some practice. At wide end, it's basically unnecessary but still nice to have. The size difference is noticeable. This lens is almost as long as 24-70L II!


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 28, 2014)

pbr9 said:


> > As a Nikon 14-24 and Canon 17-40 shooter I like that this lens has IS, but if there was a non-IS version I'd get that one. It has less CA than both the 14-24 and the 17-40, based on my copies. It's also sharper than both at the corners, but performs similar on center sharpness. Interestingly enough the 17-40 actually resolved sharper on center sharpness on some of my tests, but performed softer on corners on about 75% of the images. CA performance on the 16-35 F4 outpaces both of these lenses by a wide margin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would prefer the non-IS one because I'm 95% with IS disabled, using it on a tripod beyond 3 seconds. So if no-IS mean't the weight would be closer to the 17-40 I think that would be best for 95% of the time.

A7R with the Metabones adapter - it works well, AF and lens data information functions as it would on a Canon, and AF speed is the same as a Canon on Live View - slow for fast moving subjects. I use AF and IS typically in conjunction with each other, so MF about 95% of the time on this lens.

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 28, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> grahamclarkphoto said:
> 
> 
> > * Physically larger than 17-40
> ...



The 1mm on the low end has a significant difference on how wide it goes, but the 5mm, from my tests, doesn't make that much of a difference. 

Graham


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 28, 2014)

pbr9 said:


> It doesn't seems much bigger than the 17-40mm. A bit longer yes, but diameter, and overall impression is the same, just a bit longer. The lens hood seems more convenient than the 17-40mm petal hood. The reason i asked about the IS is that i'm not entirely sure about its effectiveness, so if anyone has any remarks about this it would be great to have some kind of reference point to compare with, but overall it's a significant improvement over the 17-40mm by far.



It's significantly heftier than the 17-40.

2-3 stops of real-world stabilization is what i'm seeing, so useful when not shooting with a tripod. 

Graham


----------



## Sabalok (Sep 28, 2014)

From the reviews i have seen i noticed that some people have really bad EF 17-40mm copies.

I think it was a guy named RLphoto from here who had a 17-40mm copy that showed corners so bad i first thought he uses a vignete blur. 
No honest i have never seen such bad corners with any of my Canon glass.

I own a 16-35mm f2.8 and my brother has a 17-40mm f4.
The 17-40mm from my bother is much sharper in the corner than what i have seen from RLphoto.

So i thank you for this review. It seems your 17-40mm is closer to my brothers in terms of image quality.

The 16-35mm f4 seem to be a nice upgarde but not such a big step in terms of image quality.
Sure nice for pixel peeper but i guess you will hardly see a difference in prints.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 28, 2014)

Sabalok said:


> From the reviews i have seen i noticed that some people have really bad EF 17-40mm copies.



That's always a problem with pro or amateur lens reviews alike - they've only got one copy, and seldom bother to check vs. other reviews if their sample might have issues.

Personally, I had to replace my first 17-40L copy because of bad performance and decentering. To tell what you might really get, LensRentals seems to be the only place having stacks of lenses to test and compare.


----------



## grahamclarkphoto (Sep 29, 2014)

Sabalok said:


> From the reviews i have seen i noticed that some people have really bad EF 17-40mm copies.
> 
> I think it was a guy named RLphoto from here who had a 17-40mm copy that showed corners so bad i first thought he uses a vignete blur.
> No honest i have never seen such bad corners with any of my Canon glass.
> ...



Yes, I've heard this as well. My copy is pretty old, from 2007, and it's resolved tack sharp ever since, even with moisture entering into the lens enclosure. 

I wish there was a way to determine which eras or batches are good and bad...

Graham


----------



## sarangiman (Oct 7, 2014)

Graham - nice work!

I must have owned one of those dud 17-40s; no matter how many times I sent it back to Canon, when it came back it'd be sharp in the corners for a few days/weeks, and then go soft again. Or one entire side would go soft and would never really sharpen up until f/18, at which point I'd have softening from diffraction. 

The three 16-35mm f/2.8L II copies I tested were just as bad, if not worse.

The 16-35 f/4L IS changed all that - I really, really love this lens.

I'm curious - you had no issues on your A7R? I believe the sensor or mount on my A7R is pretty off, as I have trouble with most adapted wide angle zooms. Meanwhile, the new Sony FE 16-35 on my A7R works quite well, so it's very confusing. Wish I had a few A7R bodies (and time) to test...

I do wonder, though, about adapting ultra wides to the A7R, b/c of all the sensor glass thickness issues Roger Cicala wrote about over at LensRentals...

Anyway, beautiful images as well; thanks for the comparison!


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 7, 2014)

grahamclarkphoto said:


> Sabalok said:
> 
> 
> > From the reviews i have seen i noticed that some people have really bad EF 17-40mm copies.
> ...


Well in fairness, I did a formal review of the 17-40L in actual use and that lens regardless of the IQ, still made some of my favorite images. However, that being said, I don't miss it.

http://youtu.be/OWK68nuC_hE


----------



## rigrx (Oct 7, 2014)

Daman said:


> sonys 16-35mm is better than canons.
> 
> read the reviews... so sony not only makes the better sensors now.. no it also makes the better lenses.



Not Sony, Zeiss...


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 7, 2014)

Designed by Zeiss, but made by Sony in Japan. That's not a bad thing - Sony make some nice lenses.


----------

