Archive 2014 · NEW 16-35 f/4L IS vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

hotdog12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · NEW 16-35 f/4L IS vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

I just did some basic side by side tests comparing the lenses above shot at f/4 at 16mm, 24mm and 35mm comparing the extreme corners.

Impressions: the new Canon 16-35 f/4 lens is head and shoulders better than my old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1. The centers of all three lenses are similar at f/4, but the corners of the new 16-35 f/4 are just phenomenal! Sharpness, resolution, color fringing, resistance to flare make the old 16-35 look pathetic and frankly look as good or better than my fabulously expensive 24-70 f/2.8L II.

The IS on the new 16-35 f/4 is excellent. I'm a photojournalist and I'll miss the f/2.8 speed, but this new lens is so darn good that I'm going to slap that bad boy on one of my 5D III bodies and leave it there.

The new 16-35 f/4 does not have a gel filter holder on the rear like the old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1, but it won't be missed. The new lens hood is less clunky, and the 77mm filter size is welcome since I won't have to buy another expensive CP.

Just a head's up, folks.

Jul 04, 2014 at 02:36 PM

Peter Kirk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · NEW 16-35 f/4L IS vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

I have had my copy for several days now and I totally agree with every observation you have made.
I have compared it to my 16-35mm 2.8L II and the results are the same, the f4LIS is so much better in the corners and identically crisp sharp in the centre. The new lens hood is also excellent, ABOUT TIME Canon for making a worthy wide zoom...
Love it!!

Jul 04, 2014 at 09:48 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · NEW 16-35 f/4L IS vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

Forgot about that gel filter holder, which I actually did use way back when I shot B&W film... It's interesting how each UWA zoom from Canon got progressively better. I've owned all of them, starting with the 20-35/2.8. Yet, despite improvements with each, I was never totally satisfied and actually quite disappointed with the f/2.8 II (at least my copy, which even was cherry picked from several on hand in the store). Looks like the f/4 might finally be the one, though I was initially discouraged by the relatively poor samples from Canon.

Jul 04, 2014 at 09:54 PM

Peter Kirk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · NEW 16-35 f/4L IS vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

rscheffler wrote:
Forgot about that gel filter holder, which I actually did use way back when I shot B&W film... It's interesting how each UWA zoom from Canon got progressively better. I've owned all of them, starting with the 20-35/2.8. Yet, despite improvements with each, I was never totally satisfied and actually quite disappointed with the f/2.8 II (at least my copy, which even was cherry picked from several on hand in the store). Looks like the f/4 might finally be the one, though I was initially discouraged by the relatively poor samples from Canon.

I agree, the poor samples from Canon ALMOST stopped me from purchasing this lens.
The proof is in the pudding though, get a copy and test it for yourself...outstanding!

Jul 04, 2014 at 09:56 PM

RobertLynn
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · NEW 16-35 f/4L IS vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

On FF the corners of any of the Canon wide zooms (save the new one that I haven't used yet) have sucked.

Glad to hear reports of good corners.

Jul 07, 2014 at 06:15 AM

RyanGphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · NEW 16-35 f/4L IS vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

This might make me sway to the new version as I shoot events mostly and the IS would be a welcomed addition as I do NOT use 2.8 on my Ver II at all.

Thanks for the thread.

Ryan G

Jul 07, 2014 at 09:02 PM

Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · NEW 16-35 f/4L IS vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

RobertLynn wrote:
On FF the corners of any of the Canon wide zooms (save the new one that I haven't used yet) have sucked.

I have said as much here at FM but then always get taken behind the bike sheds by the school bully. Perhaps your MMA shots put him off taking you on?

Jul 07, 2014 at 09:14 PM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · NEW 16-35 f/4L IS vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

The corners on my 16-35/2.8L II are just fine! Thank you very much. Says the ex-rock climbing, ex-rugby player.

See? https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1267345

Jul 07, 2014 at 09:41 PM

jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · NEW 16-35 f/4L IS vs. 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) vs. 24-70 f/2.8L II

Hey, Paul! Gotta minute? There's a great photo op back there, behind this bike shed...

Jul 07, 2014 at 09:46 PM


FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell

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