Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2014 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens

  
 
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


Snopchenko wrote:
He did trash quite a few lenses, but mostly from the lower end of the food chain (20/2.8, 28/1.8, Sigma 20/1.8 etc.)
And all the talk of this 16-35/4 unit makes me want to offload my 16-35/2.8 II - anyone wanna buy? :-D


For some reason he seems to trash just about every Tamron, even solid 70-300VC and superb 17-50 2.8 and very good 28-75 2.8. And his sample test chart images from Tamron always seem to look remarkably worse than what I've seen from my own copies. Maybe it's just random luck vs. not so much.





Jun 30, 2014 at 04:00 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


skibum5 wrote:
For some reason he seems to trash just about every Tamron, even solid 70-300VC and superb 17-50 2.8 and very good 28-75 2.8. And his sample test chart images from Tamron always seem to look remarkably worse than what I've seen from my own copies. Maybe it's just random luck vs. not so much.


That's what I get when considering Tamron as a source though- like it used to be with Sigma, you'd have to determine to send it back at least twice to get a good one once you decided to purchase. I'd love a solid 70-300VC; my 70-300 non-L turns into a coke bottle past 250mm and is only really good to 200mm, but at 2/3rd the price of the Tamron for a solid refurbished unit and complaints listed across the web, the Canon refurb dealer got my business, and the Canon continues to perform (below 250mm ).



Jun 30, 2014 at 04:53 PM
RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


I'll add my $0.02 about Bryan and TDP - he does a thorough job, is honest about things, and is making a living from a lot of hard work. I can vouch for his careful methodology - more than a few times when he thought a lens was a poor copy he's gotten a second or third from me to verify his results before posting. (I also like that he generally buys the copies he reviews retail rather than getting demos from the manufacturer.)



Edited on Jun 30, 2014 at 09:52 PM · View previous versions



Jun 30, 2014 at 05:03 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


RCicala wrote:
I'll add my $0.02 about Bryan and TDP - he does a thorough job, is honest about things, and is making a living from a lot of hard work. I can vouch for his careful methadology - more than a few times when he thought a lens was a poor copy he's gotten a second or third from me to verify his results before posting. (I also like that he generally buys the copies he reviews retail rather than getting demos from the manufacturer.)



The amount of work he goes though is truly staggering. Beyond staggering. So there is no way the heck you can fault him for putting a few links on his website. I mean it's a TON of work he does. If you've never tried, you just don't even begin to realize the effort. I think I might go crazy do as much as he does. It's like flipping burgers all day long day after day at Burger King, only in this case you have to pay strict attention to every flip and make sure they are all aligned perfeclty on the pan and timed ot the tenth of a second.

That said, for whatever reason (and there could be many), much more often my own results are much closer to as photozone.de measures than TDP and for whatever reason, just about every single Tamron lens I try performs WAY, WAY better than on TDP, sometimes night and day difference, not sure if I just luck out with top copies and he always gets a bum tamron or it's the distance and method he uses or maybe he gets more careless if it's not a Canon lens or what. That said I still make use of the site and it's always worth a look, even if I definitely don't take it as gospel. And I do find the results more trustable overall (especially in more recent years when he switched from using AF to manual focus and then to manual focus with more than one trial, the first two methods really were not terrible valid, so I think the results seem better than in the early years, although I still seem to get better matches to my copies with PZ more often) than DxO at least and it's a good starting point. Also lots of good info on size and weight and so on all together.



Edited on Jul 01, 2014 at 01:16 AM · View previous versions



Jun 30, 2014 at 07:16 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


I wrote that I was feeling pessimistic, because as we know, Canon's current UWA's are highly polarising.

And I guess my real point was that in the face of a new release, be it body or lens, we as a group tend to have high expectations, and possibly get anxious to acquire something new that ultimately may not be for us.

In a nutshell I am wary. I am watching the tests with interest and meant no disrespect to Bryan's efforts.



Jun 30, 2014 at 07:35 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


Paul Mo wrote:
I wrote that I was feeling pessimistic, because as we know, Canon's current UWA's are highly polarising...


The TS-E 17/4L is only "polarizing" if you have a filter on it.



Jun 30, 2014 at 07:38 PM
swordfishphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


Yeah yeah image stabilization. You almost need it because of how slow it is. Honestly I think any benefit from IS is lost because of the f/4 aperture. Unless you're shooting outside in broad daylight and had to stop down your 16-35 f/2.8 anyway, you don't gain anything besides maybe a miniscule amount of corner sharpness. Whoop-de-doo


Jun 30, 2014 at 10:13 PM
Jeff Donald
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


While IS may not work for you, it does work for some of us. I routinely shoot the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II at night, at 200mm and at 1/15 of a second. I can see myself shooting the 16-35mm f/4 at ¼ or a ½ second, something I couldn't do with the f/2.8 version.


Jun 30, 2014 at 10:23 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


swordfishphoto wrote:
Yeah yeah image stabilization... Whoop-de-doo


Wow! That's a totally useless contribution.

If you think that's harsh, you should have seen my first response. It started with, "Boooo!".



Jun 30, 2014 at 10:28 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


swordfishphoto wrote:
Yeah yeah image stabilization. You almost need it because of how slow it is. Honestly I think any benefit from IS is lost because of the f/4 aperture. Unless you're shooting outside in broad daylight and had to stop down your 16-35 f/2.8 anyway, you don't gain anything besides maybe a miniscule amount of corner sharpness. Whoop-de-doo


A lot of people shoot ultra wides at anything other than wide open.



Jun 30, 2014 at 10:55 PM
tarzan1234
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


I'm a tripod person but I do see IS can be useful. I've been in situations where flash and tripod are not allowed (museums, churches...etc), and hiked to places where bringing or using a tripod is not practical or even not possible.
IS is certainly more useful for telephoto but I think a lot of people still find it very helpful for wide angle lenses.

swordfishphoto wrote:
Yeah yeah image stabilization. You almost need it because of how slow it is. Honestly I think any benefit from IS is lost because of the f/4 aperture. Unless you're shooting outside in broad daylight and had to stop down your 16-35 f/2.8 anyway, you don't gain anything besides maybe a miniscule amount of corner sharpness. Whoop-de-doo




Jun 30, 2014 at 10:58 PM
erikburd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


I've used Bryan's reviews for a some time when selecting gear, and they've been very helpful. He provides a lot of good information and puts in a lot of work in the reviews, and it shows. I respect the work that he does.

In my experience his information has been pretty good and relatively consistent with other sites like LensTip, PhotoZone, and of course the experiences of others on this forum.



Jul 01, 2014 at 12:22 AM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


the lens has excellent image quality, and is what all landscape shooters have been asking for. This is the best landscape ultrawide zoom lens, with good control of distortion at 16, excellent sharpness and micro contrast, IS, and takes filters. I sold my nikon 14-24 when this lens was announced afraid that its price would drop. Would I sell my 16-35II for this? have not decided yet. I have a very good copy of the lens, and shoot landscape at f11 anyway, where the difference is small. I also use my 16-35 for people and video at 2.8 regularly.
But I think this is a very exciting lens for many people.



Jul 01, 2014 at 12:34 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


I think this is a fantastically exciting lens, if the image quality holds up upon scrutiny by the masses. I'm in the camp that since modern lenses are already too big and too expensive-- the addition of IS just makes sense. The threshold on size/$$ is already crossed without it, and its inclusion doesn't push us very far beyond the already crossed threshold. Of course, this threshold is like Kafka's entry to Before The Law: It's mine, built only for me. Yours may be different!


Jul 01, 2014 at 01:09 AM
Sir_Loin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


swordfishphoto wrote:
Yeah yeah image stabilization. You almost need it because of how slow it is. Honestly I think any benefit from IS is lost because of the f/4 aperture. Unless you're shooting outside in broad daylight and had to stop down your 16-35 f/2.8 anyway, you don't gain anything besides maybe a miniscule amount of corner sharpness. Whoop-de-doo


I'm certainly not going to take any notice of that post from someone who lasted posted in the Canon forum 3 months ago! Very strange!

Anyway, it seems my hopes for this lens are being realised and I can finally replace my good, but ultimately disappointing in the corners 17-40.



Jul 01, 2014 at 02:28 AM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


Judging from all the reviews and impressions that so far have been posted I believe the 16-35 f4L IS is the best wide angle zoom Canon has ever made. Image quality seems to be great edge to edge at all zoom settings with very little CA even when wide open.


Jul 01, 2014 at 07:22 AM
ggreene
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


For those who don't need the extra stop it sounds like a killer zoom.

I'm hoping Canon updates the 2.8 version as well.



Jul 01, 2014 at 08:01 AM
newphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


I have long used the 16-24 F2.8 L II, primarily to photograph landscapes. Since this lens is always on a tripod I have little use for IS (or F2.8 for that matter). The new lens weighs almost as much as my 2.8 version, and I have already invested in a 82MM polarizer. For those reasons I will not order the new one, but I can see how IS would make a difference for those who must hand hold.


Jul 01, 2014 at 08:23 AM
rbn920
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


One thing I think many people are forgetting is that the 16-35 f/2.8L II is still a $1700 lens. The new f/4 may not be as affordable as the 17-40 but you sure get a lot if you don't need f2.8. I'm sure Canon will get around to making a new f2.8 and I'm sure it will be awesome but I bet it is over $2k. With the performance of this lens thus far it almost looks like canon threw in the IS for free. Although I plan on using this lens mostly on a tripod, I would have LOVED to have it when I was in Spain last fall. Being able to shoot in low light, keep decent depth of field, and have sharp corners?

That all said, I am a big fan of TDP reviews.



Jul 01, 2014 at 10:44 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · TDP Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM Lens


Bryan's site is one of the first I check when evaluating Canon gear. I'm - I guess the right word is - p*ssed that someone dumps on him because he has links to retail places not unlike say those right here on FM. For a single person working with one or very few copies (which I note he often buys so the manufacturer can't make sure he gets a "good" one), his methodology is consistent, repeatable, and insightful. He has mentioned negative things about virtually every product he reviews. The only one I can remember where seemed to get carried away was when he did the 24mm f/3.5L TSE but then it's hard to fault this lens IMHO.

Considering that Bryan does this work and puts it out gratis, I'm stunned that anyone is lame enough to complain that he tries to earn a bit by linking. Without it I suspect he'd have to stop his work. Of course he isn't the definitive word on anything. No one is. I take every "expert" with a grain of salt because in the end it's my choice based upon my evaluation. No way to blame someone else for it.

As for the 16-35mm f/4.0 IS, I'm ambivalent. I'm still shooting a used old 16-35mm f/2.8L ver. 1 and it is a fine lens. I'm sure there are better wide angles out there - I notice the Nikon gets praised a lot - but I have 100s of excellent photos taken with it (largely off a tripod), but when shooting handheld the f/2.8 has made the difference on occasion. I only have one IS lens and am not sure how much IS adds to a lens this wide. To be honest I rarely use my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ver II in IS mode, but then it's usually trying to capture action.

I would appreciate a thoughtful discussion of just how valuable IS really is. On my 400mm f/5.6L I could really see how it might help though the increase in price would drive it beyond many shooter's budget. At 16mm? Would love to hear from folks using it in the field. Does IS really make it equal to the f/2.8 version in low light?

Robert



Jul 01, 2014 at 11:30 AM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.