Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  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
  

Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
  
 
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
Klaus at Photozone just posted his review on the new Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS.

Here is an excerpt:
"The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 USM L IS is definitely a step forward for Canon. The lens is capable of delivering an impressive performance throughout most of the range but especially between 16-24mm. The center quality is stellar here and the borders and even corners are sharp." - Read full review

_______________________

Canon EF 16–35mm f/4L IS USM lens ($1,199)

B&H Photo | Adorama



Jul 05, 2014 at 04:34 PM
Peter Kirk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


Ive had mine for several days now, I must admit, I am extremely happy with the sharpness, especially at the 16mm end and in the extreme corners...just beautiful.




Jul 05, 2014 at 02:44 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


So on their tests it fairs very well at 16mm and 20mm compared to the 17-40L and well across the board compared to the 16-35 II (although by a lesser margin at the wide end than vs the 17-40) for sharpness. I also has much less CA of all types than the 17-40L and 16-35 II.

But it lags a bit 24-35mm compared to 24-70 f/4 IS and even more compared to 24-70 II. It particularly pales just a bit compared to those center and mid-frame it seems, especially against the 24-70 II. I've been a bit afraid of that from my initial snap around, but not sure yet. Although it does have less distortion at 24mm and even a touch less CA.

Edited on Jul 05, 2014 at 05:01 PM · View previous versions



Jul 05, 2014 at 04:38 AM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


Interestingly enough, if you look at the graphs, at F8 and F11, the numbers are very close to what 16-35II does. Somehow I dont think thats the whole story though. I am sure it turns in a more even performance. The conclusion section certainly sings it praises.


Jul 05, 2014 at 07:13 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


Overall — and generally, "overall" is what matters — this is another report suggesting that Canon has here produced an ultra wide zoom lens that offers improved performance over its ancestors. While neither it nor any other lens will ever achieve absolute perfection, there is little in the reported performance of this lens to complain about.


Jul 05, 2014 at 02:06 PM
molson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


gdanmitchell wrote:
Overall — and generally, "overall" is what matters — this is another report suggesting that Canon has here produced an ultra wide zoom lens that offers improved performance over its ancestors.


Not to be pedantic, but the term "confirming" would be more accurate than "suggesting"...



Jul 05, 2014 at 02:17 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


deleted :-)

Edited on Jul 05, 2014 at 08:01 PM · View previous versions



Jul 05, 2014 at 04:05 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


I'm still waiting for DxO's test, personally- along with PZ and TDP and the results several forum members have already gotten, that's when I call the results 'confirmed', i.e., I could make a purchase decision .


Jul 05, 2014 at 04:23 PM
cameron12x
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


johnctharp wrote:
I'm still waiting for DxO's test, personally- along with PZ and TDP and the results several forum members have already gotten, that's when I call the results 'confirmed', i.e., I could make a purchase decision .


This lens is so good, it will be sold out by the time you wait for more reviews!

(Kidding about being sold out.)



Jul 05, 2014 at 04:48 PM
molson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


johnctharp wrote:
I'm still waiting for DxO's test, personally- along with PZ and TDP and the results several forum members have already gotten, that's when I call the results 'confirmed', i.e., I could make a purchase decision .


Or you could just try the lens, which would immediately remove all doubt...



Jul 05, 2014 at 07:33 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



johnctharp
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


molson wrote:
Or you could just try the lens, which would immediately remove all doubt...


I'm willing to bet that the DxO review will be out before I get a chance- I don't buy things that aren't on sale, and I try to hit the sales where they're already on sale. Obviously I don't need this lens right away .



Jul 05, 2014 at 07:59 PM
cgarcia
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


I'm a bit puzzled with this review, because I liked (and still like) a lot some full size pictures posted and I somewhat envised this lens as a potential landscape all-in-one. And it seems it is not (except for extreme wide angle): the 24-70 II and the 24-70 F4 theoretically beat it in the 24-35 range by a fair extent. In fact, the old 17-40 is equal or slightly better at the end of the zoom range.

Well, it seems a good lens, likely overall the best Canon wide angle zoom to date; but for ultimate perfectionists, I think that there are better choices for landscape. Although there is a use case where this lens is indeed the best tool out there: churchs and museums. And excellent for night street shooting, specially if the good flare resistance is confirmed.



Jul 06, 2014 at 07:22 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


johnctharp wrote:
I'm willing to bet that the DxO review will be out before I get a chance- I don't buy things that aren't on sale, and I try to hit the sales where they're already on sale. Obviously I don't need this lens right away .


canon had a (accidentally (apparently) allowed 15-20% refurb sale on it ) pre-order sale on it


Edited on Jul 07, 2014 at 12:47 AM · View previous versions



Jul 06, 2014 at 07:28 PM
mogud
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


cgarcia wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled with this review, because I liked (and still like) a lot some full size pictures posted and I somewhat envised this lens as a potential landscape all-in-one. And it seems it is not (except for extreme wide angle): the 24-70 II and the 24-70 F4 theoretically beat it in the 24-35 range by a fair extent. In fact, the old 17-40 is equal or slightly better at the end of the zoom range.

Well, it seems a good lens, likely overall the best Canon wide angle zoom to date; but for ultimate perfectionists, I think that there
...Show more

^^ +1

I like this lens and the results it produces, but after reading the PZ review, I came away with thinking the review was a ho-hum by PZ. Great, but no "highly recommended". Lots of "best UWA zoom yet from Canon". I will likely get this lens, but I haven't caught the fever yet.



Jul 06, 2014 at 10:13 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


cgarcia wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled with this review, because I liked (and still like) a lot some full size pictures posted and I somewhat envised this lens as a potential landscape all-in-one. And it seems it is not (except for extreme wide angle): the 24-70 II and the 24-70 F4 theoretically beat it in the 24-35 range by a fair extent. In fact, the old 17-40 is equal or slightly better at the end of the zoom range.

Well, it seems a good lens, likely overall the best Canon wide angle zoom to date; but for ultimate perfectionists, I think that there
...Show more

I see your point, but it may depend on some other issues concerning what other lenses you use and how you shoot.

For many of us, the 24mm+ range duplicates focal lengths that we can (and often prefer to) cover with other lenses lenses such as a 24-105 or 24-70. Our main goal with an ultra wide zoom is to cover focal lengths that we cannot cover using the lenses we more typically have on the camera. Looked at this way, it is the performance at the shorter focal lengths that is of most concern, and even if we presume that that the 16-35mm f/4 isn't quite as good as a 24-70 II (and that is a pretty tough standard!) or 24-70 f/4 at 24mm and longer we would welcome significant improvement at the shorter focal lengths where there aren't any other Canon options that are better.

The 17-40 is pretty good at the long end of its range, especially if you close down the aperture for "typical" landscape use, so being "as good as" that lens isn't a bad evaluation at all.

In any case, I think we'll all get a better idea of the performance of this lens as more copies get out into the field.

Dan



Jul 06, 2014 at 11:13 PM
Snupi
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


Hello folks! I have owned both the 16-35/2.8II and the 17-40/4 (the latter two copies). I now have the 16-35/4IS and have tested it thoroughly. The new 16-35IS blows Canons former wide angels zooms out of the water! Period! To you that only read tests and charts without trying the lens, you shall – well, try it!

My only comment to the test at Photozone is that my copy performs very well at 35mm setting, sharp corners/edges at f4. But my copy has some kind of field curvature at the 28mm setting, and is in my experience the lens’ weakest focal length.

An important finding is the lack of field curvature, compared to the EF 24-70/2.8II.



Jul 07, 2014 at 01:41 PM
Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


gdanmitchell wrote:
Looked at this way, it is the performance at the shorter focal lengths that is of most concern, and even if we presume that that the 16-35mm f/4 isn't quite as good as a 24-70 II (and that is a pretty tough standard!) or 24-70 f/4 at 24mm and longer we would welcome significant improvement at the shorter focal lengths where there aren't any other Canon options that are better.
Dan


Significant improvement? I thought you had declared the 17-40L "excellent" all these years and pooh-poohed those of us who said its corners were mediocre (even at f/8, f/11). Many of us have sought this significant improvement elsewhere, such as through Zeiss lenses. But I guess when "I" own a lens it is a result of "careful" "nuanced" thinking, when "you" own it, it is confirmation bias and "you will never see the difference in print."




Jul 07, 2014 at 04:05 PM
pKai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


OK..... so if I were buying a lens in this range today, this one is the one to get.....

The question for me, however, is whether the performance is worth the upgrade from a 16-35 F2.8L II? This is my most often used lens underwater -- 90% plus -- and I have zero complaints with its sharpness nor contrast.....

Two things about how a lens in this range is used underwater ---

1. Seldom (as in almost never) used wide-open so the loss of a stop is inconsequential... (advantage 16-35 F4 if IQ is better)
2. With the added density of water acting as an excellent vibration dampener and using strobes for 95+ percent of images, IS is of no added benefit at all... (advantage 16-35 2.8 if IQ on the other one is not significantly better)....

Thoughts?



Jul 07, 2014 at 04:34 PM
Robin Smith
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


An important finding is the lack of field curvature, compared to the EF 24-70/2.8II.

But earlier you said the 16-35 has field curvature at 28mm and 28mm is contained within the 24-70 range. So are you saying that it has less field curvature at 28mm compared to the field curvature seen in the 24-70 at 28mm? Does the 24-70 in fact suffer from field curvature?



Jul 07, 2014 at 07:14 PM
Robin Smith
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


Definitely a more lukewarm reception by PZ than might have been expected, although their results agree with The Digital Picture's - their interpretations and conclusions differ. TDP is enthusiastic, PZ less so. My feelings now align with Mogud. I have no pressing need for the lens, so where I was once thinking I might get it, I'm back on the fence. If I was an ultrawide aficionado it might be different. If only someone made a small, excellent 17-18mm prime at a reasonable price...


Jul 07, 2014 at 07:20 PM
1
       2       3       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password