# Canon 16-35 F4, how do you like it?



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2018)

I have an opportunity to get a 16-35F4 that appears to be in perfect condition..... my question to the forum users is, how do you like it? Are there any other full frame wide angle zooms, including third party) that I should be looking at?

Thanks!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 28, 2018)

It is a fantastic lens. Unbelievable good value, very sharp and the IS is the icing on the cake. I regret selling mine but was seduced by the focal length of the 11-24. 

Nothing comes close to it.


----------



## BillB (Aug 28, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> It is a fantastic lens. Unbelievable good value, very sharp and the IS is the icing on the cake. I regret selling mine but was seduced by the focal length of the 11-24.
> 
> Nothing comes close to it.


+1


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 28, 2018)

16-35 F4 has excellent optics, very efficient IS and relatively good price for an L class lens. 
11-24 F4 is much wider, has excellent optics, has better coating (flare resistance) but is 3-times more expensive.


----------



## Durf (Aug 28, 2018)

It's a great lens! 

It's quite sharp and its 1 of 3 lenses that are part of my main kit and carried with me always.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 28, 2018)

Love it. I haven’t used mine much recently since I am more into longer FL stitched landscapes at the moment, but it’s a beautiful lens.


----------



## dpc (Aug 28, 2018)

It really is an outstanding lens. I use it frequently.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2018)

It's a great lens. I don't use mine too much, since most of my ultrawide shooting is travel/architecture and I bring the 11-24 and TS-E 17 (and a tripod) for that. I did get it after the 11-24, to have a more convenient at-home UWA zoom. IQ and AF are excellent, and it's an amazing value.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Aug 28, 2018)

It's a great lens. I bought it to replace a Canon 17-40 f4L that I got cheap and had for a short time. That lens is good too but corners are soft (and no IS). The 16-35 f4 is sharp from edge to edge - I doubt any other lens in similar focal lengths can match it. The other one to take a close look at is Tamron 15-30 f2.8, which they have just announced will be updated with a G2 version later this Fall.

Like you, I looked to this forum for advice before choosing the 16-35 f4L IS. If you want to read the advice on that thread, it is here: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...35-f2-8-version-2-not-3-vs-16-35-f4-is.34296/


----------



## pwp (Aug 28, 2018)

I must have one of the rare under-performing copies. CPS tested it and said it was perfectly fine. At any aperture it's just that little bit soft. Reading the reviews when it was released, I thought at last, here's a strong performing UWA zoom. This was after a brilliant 17-40 f/4 bought new when they first shipped which I should never have sold, then a succession of three 16-35 f/2.8 II zooms which were all complete rubbish. Sigh....

As a result I've reluctantly evolved a shooting style that doesn't often go wider than 24mm with my stellar 24-70 f/2.8II. 

I probably should cough up for a 16-35 f/2.8 III. Or take a chance with an off-brand UWA zoom. But which one?

-pw


----------



## docsmith (Aug 28, 2018)

In my mind, it is on the list of "epic" lenses that Canon has to offer. Great IQ, colors, and very useful range. IS works great, I've hand held shots at 16 mm at 1/2 second and even sporadic keepers at 1 sec. If 16 mm is wide enough and f/4 fast enough, it is a no-brainer. Great lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2018)

pwp said:


> I must have one of the rare under-performing copies. CPS tested it and said it was perfectly fine. At any aperture it's just that little bit soft. Reading the reviews when it was released, I thought at last, here's a strong performing UWA zoom. This was after a brilliant 17-40 f/4 bought new when they first shipped which I should never have sold, then a succession of three 16-35 f/2.8 II zooms which were all complete rubbish. Sigh....
> 
> As a result I've reluctantly evolved a shooting style that doesn't often go wider than 24mm with my stellar 24-70 f/2.8II.
> 
> ...


Are you talking about the 16-35 F4, or one of the F2.8 versions?


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I have an opportunity to get a 16-35F4 that appears to be in perfect condition..... my question to the forum users is, how do you like it? Are there any other full frame wide angle zooms, including third party) that I should be looking at?
> 
> Thanks!


Even though I'm convinced the 16-35 f4 must be an excellent lens, mine sometimes showed a very strange behaviour.
Set on infinity, (Bryce National Park), the tree in front was tack-sharp, so were the distant mountains on the sides, but the distant middle of the landscape was really unsharp. I hope Canon can fix this issue...
In the meantime, I use my 21mm Zeiss and the EF 14mm II, which is quite good and lightweight, but far too expensive brand new. If I had to start anew, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the superb 2,8/16-35.


----------



## ashmadux (Aug 28, 2018)

pwp said:


> I must have one of the rare under-performing copies. CPS tested it and said it was perfectly fine. At any aperture it's just that little bit soft. Reading the reviews when it was released, I thought at last, here's a strong performing UWA zoom. This was after a brilliant 17-40 f/4 bought new when they first shipped which I should never have sold, then a succession of three 16-35 f/2.8 II zooms which were all complete rubbish. Sigh....
> 
> As a result I've reluctantly evolved a shooting style that doesn't often go wider than 24mm with my stellar 24-70 f/2.8II.
> 
> ...




check your results against the digital pictures image quality results. Sen's work there is gold standard, i have tested every lens ive ever owned based on whats on that site. gold.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 28, 2018)

After reading reviews and comments here, I decided that I would buy this lens for myself for my birthday in October. The only lens I had wider than 24mm was my 10–22mm EF-S lens, which I couldn't use on the 6D2. 

A high school classmate died suddenly a few weeks back. I decided that given the uncertainties of life, it made no sense to wait until October, when I could afford it no more or less than in June. (Admittedly, I'll use it more when the weather cools off, and I go out taking pictures more often.)

The lens lives up to everything I was hoping for. At 16mm it does have a bit of vignetting that shows up in ACR with lens profile corrections turned off. I've not taken any killer pictures with it yet, really more like tests, but they look good even if not great works of art.


----------



## amorse (Aug 28, 2018)

I've been very satisfied with the lens. Really hard to complain about it's performance. I've looked to replace it with something faster and I've come to the conclusion that the 16-35 f/2.8L iii is the only other option that suits my needs (right now anyway). If I didn't need a filter thread, I'd be looking at Tamron's 15-30 G2 coming soon though - I had seen a lot of positive reviews of the first version so I'd be curious where they go with he G2.


----------



## amorse (Aug 28, 2018)

pwp said:


> I must have one of the rare under-performing copies. CPS tested it and said it was perfectly fine. At any aperture it's just that little bit soft. Reading the reviews when it was released, I thought at last, here's a strong performing UWA zoom. This was after a brilliant 17-40 f/4 bought new when they first shipped which I should never have sold, then a succession of three 16-35 f/2.8 II zooms which were all complete rubbish. Sigh....
> 
> As a result I've reluctantly evolved a shooting style that doesn't often go wider than 24mm with my stellar 24-70 f/2.8II.
> -pw


I had the reverse of that problem - bought a 24-70 f/2.8II, got it home, threw it on a tripod and found it softer than the 16-35 f/4 and my 24-105 f/4 at nearly all apertures. All manually focused photos with several replications of static subjects and it was clear to me that the 24-70 was not performing to my expectations (given its reputation). I returned it to the camera store the next day, told them it was soft and asked to swap for another lens, which they were willing to do. Took that one home and it's ahead of both the 24-105 and 16-35 now.


----------



## Geek (Aug 28, 2018)

I love the 16-35 f4 lens. I use a 24-105 f4 for my walk around lens, but for any critical shots I use either the 16-35 f4 or 70-200 f2.8. If its a good deal, go for it. You won't regret it.


----------



## Durf (Aug 28, 2018)

stevelee said:


> After reading reviews and comments here, I decided that I would buy this lens for myself for my birthday in October. The only lens I had wider than 24mm was my 10–22mm EF-S lens, which I couldn't use on the 6D2.
> 
> A high school classmate died suddenly a few weeks back. I decided that given the uncertainties of life, it made no sense to wait until October, when I could afford it no more or less than in June. (Admittedly, I'll use it more when the weather cools off, and I go out taking pictures more often.)
> 
> ...



It's a keeper for sure! I have never regretted buying it and use it a lot. It's also nice that it zooms inside of the lens barrel too, making it great for using filters and doing landscape work with; etc. My copy is very sharp all through the focal range at f/4, I shoot it mostly at f/8 or 11 though and it's extremely sharp at those apertures.
I never leave home without it!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 2, 2018)

EF 16-35 f/4L IS is a terrific lens in all aspects, sharp corner-to-corner, lightweight, IS and weather sealed. I used it every time I have the opportunity to do so. If you don't need wider FL or faster aperture i.e. f/2.8 this is it.
My only regret is that I paid much more of what is being sold today but, you won't regret at all.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 3, 2018)

I can't think of a reason that I might would want the f/2.8, certainly not enough to justify the extra size and weight, even ignoring the extra money.

Most of the time I'm going to stop the lens down somewhat anyway. The exception is the crape myrtle blossoms pictured above. Even at 16mm and f/4, you can get a blurry background when close to the subject. With the quality sensors can give now at high ISOs and IS allowing for slower shutter speeds, I am unlikely ever to miss the extra stop, and I'm glad to miss the extra weight all the time.


----------



## larusejunior (Sep 3, 2018)

This is the lens i use the most (Landscape/Cityscape). Really sharp and lightweight


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's a great lens. I don't use mine too much, since most of my ultrawide shooting is travel/architecture and I bring the 11-24 and TS-E 17 (and a tripod) for that. I did get it after the 11-24, to have a more convenient at-home UWA zoom. IQ and AF are excellent, and it's an amazing value.


I agree the 16-35 F4 is a great lens.
Perfect really.
I was curious of your use of the 11-24mm. I think this a great lens but so big and heavy I really bring it with me. It must surely bend a lot of the architecture shots (it is pretty linear level). Does it work out pretty good for architecture?.
I have a 24 T-SE. Maybe you have both but if you only bought the 17 TS-E why did you choose it. I thought long and hard and selected the 24 TS-E II but was never sure I made the correct choice.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Sep 3, 2018)

I love the 16 -35 f4 lens



sunset by joseph kelly, on Flickr


998A1111 by joseph kelly, on Flickr


uss constitution by joseph kelly, on Flickr



sweet music in the park by joseph kelly, on Flickr

a full range of the lens


----------



## pwp (Sep 4, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Are you talking about the 16-35 F4, or one of the F2.8 versions?


Don, sorry that wasn't made clear, I'm talking about a 16-35 f/4 is which mainly sits idle in my bag. I feel certain my soft copy is an exception.
I have been plain unlucky with UWA zooms with the exception of that long-gone 17-40 f/4. 

-pw


----------



## pwp (Sep 4, 2018)

ashmadux said:


> check your results against the digital pictures image quality results. Sen's work there is gold standard, i have tested every lens ive ever owned based on whats on that site. gold.


Agree, The Digital Picture is a go-to asite for me too when I'm researching new glass. Something that can't be taken into account in tests is copy variation. 

-pw


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 4, 2018)

pwp said:


> Agree, The Digital Picture is a go-to asite for me too when I'm researching new glass. Something that can't be taken into account in tests is copy variation.
> 
> -pw


There is also such a thing as service center variation. If I had a lens like yours I would send it to a different service center, or talk to a supervisor and tell them I want another look by a different Tech at the service center I sent it to the first time.

The consensus here is correct, the lens is very sharp, very useful. CPS can make mistakes, but they are open-minded.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 4, 2018)

The EF16-35mm f4L IS USM is one of the best zoom lenses Canon builds. As others have said sharp out to the corners, very little in the way distortion or optical defect. Lightweight and weather sealed, throw in reasonable price and its a gem.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 6, 2018)

If f4 meets your requirements, I wholeheartedly recommend it. I gave up mine to acquire the 2.8 version III, but while I had it, I felt it was a solid offering, far better than 2.8 version II anyway.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 6, 2018)

Very very much!


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 9, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> There is also such a thing as service center variation. If I had a lens like yours I would send it to a different service center, or talk to a supervisor and tell them I want another look by a different Tech at the service center I sent it to the first time.
> 
> The consensus here is correct, the lens is very sharp, very useful. CPS can make mistakes, but they are open-minded.



I've found that when I send a lens to CPS I need to send sample photos that demonstrate the issue and very clearly describe it in writing as well. Otherwise they'll either tell me there is nothing wrong with it or they'll say they fixed it but send it back to me exactly the same as it was before.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 9, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> I've found that when I send a lens to CPS I need to send sample photos that demonstrate the issue and very clearly describe it in writing as well. Otherwise they'll either tell me there is nothing wrong with it or they'll say they fixed it but send it back to me exactly the same as it was before.



Last time I sent a lens I didn't explain anything. They opened the package and put the three pieces I sent them back together.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 10, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Last time I sent a lens I didn't explain anything. They opened the package and put the three pieces I sent them back together.




When things that are supposed to be one piece are in three pieces, they probably realize that it is not up to spec.They also realize that certain (time consuming) calibrations and adjustments must be properly performed when a lens has been disassembled that extensively before being reassembled.

With more subtle lens alignment issues, it seems their testing equipment may not be as critical as real world photos can be.

Uncle Roger has written several articles on the subject, including this one, where he says:

"A lot of repair locations literally do resolution testing on an 8 X 11 or 13 X 19 ink jet printed chart. One used pictures of a bookshelf across the office to do optical adjustments on very expensive lenses (I know because they left their memory card in the camera they insisted we send in with the lens). "

What he wrote overall in the article has matched my own experience with sending lenses to CPS for alignment. The better I tell them what the problem is and show it to them in example images, the better the lens is properly adjusted to address the problem when it comes back. When I started including comparison images shot using the same camera but with different lenses to show the problem only occurred with a specific lens is when I started seeing significantly better results. It no longer allowed them to assume it was 'user error' or the camera rather than the lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 10, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> I've found that when I send a lens to CPS I need to send sample photos that demonstrate the issue and very clearly describe it in writing as well. Otherwise they'll either tell me there is nothing wrong with it or they'll say they fixed it but send it back to me exactly the same as it was before.


It doesn't matter what you tell them, they don't care and they don't trust you. They put it on the test bench and it either passes or it doesn't. I have sent in illustrative images they haven't even looked at, if it passes the bench test they can't work on it, if it doesn't pass the spec tests they will send you the quote, which is generally fixed price rates nowadays, and replace whatever parts their testing fall outside specs.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 10, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> It doesn't matter what you tell them, they don't care and they don't trust you. They put it on the test bench and it either passes or it doesn't. I have sent in illustrative images they haven't even looked at, if it passes the bench test they can't work on it, if it doesn't pass the spec tests they will send you the quote, which is generally fixed price rates nowadays, and replace whatever parts their testing fall outside specs.



Other than your initial complaint I don't think they read your details either. When I had to pay repairs it always seemed like a standard set price. If I tried to talk them about the repair, I always got no reaction or conversation other than the quote. When the lens and body came back it was always repaired and the problem was taken care of.


----------



## sdz (Sep 11, 2018)

I'm convinced. I was looking for a deal for the 16-35 mm F/2.8. III. I realized that the deal I wanted meant I would buy the F/4.


----------

