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 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS

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


pKai wrote:
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
...Show more

Depends on your perception of 'significantly'.

All these L lenses are at the very least 'very good', whether you will realistically see a few percent increase in IQ after careful exposure and RAW processing, followed by reproduction in litho or print (especially in photos where corner detail isn't critical) is very debatable IMO.

If I were you I think I'd be sticking with what is already a very good lens




Jul 07, 2014 at 02:20 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


pKai wrote:
Thoughts?


Video. Otherwise, given that water also relieves the system of some sharpness and that subjects rarely fill the entire focal plane, the faster (and already paid-for) zoom would be preferable due to more light for AF and that very little if any end-product acuity would be missed.



Jul 07, 2014 at 03:02 PM
Snupi
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


Robin Smith wrote:
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?


I see what I wrote can be misunderstood. The lack of field curvature on the 16-35II goes for the whole focal length range.

The EF 24-70/2.8II (my sample) has a lot of field curvature; not at 24mm, a little bit at 70mm, and a lot at 50mm, but it seems to be some sample variations. I have tried three versions of this lens, and one exhibited visibly more than the other two. Doing landscape work I stop down and focus a little bit beyond infinity in order to get sharp edges with the 24-70 in the 28-70mm focal length range.

I have not compared the 28mm setting for the two lenses (16-35/4IS and 24-70/2.8II) in an exact controlled situation (yet), but studying my existing pictures regarding field curvature they seem comparable at this focal length, thus the 24-70 is a bit sharper in the frame center.



Jul 07, 2014 at 04:49 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


Various things:

1. 24-70 II definitely has considerably more 1st order lateral CA at 24mm f/8 than the 16-35 f/4 IS

2. 16-35 f/4 IS has more 2nd order lateral CA at 24mm f/8 (but this amount is much less than the amount of 1st order lateral CA the 24-70 II has at these settings)

3. 24-70 II fights off longitudinal CA exceptionally well at 24mm f/8, not yet sure where to place 16-35 f/4 IS but it is certainly among the better even if it should turn out to have more than 24-70 II, not sure yet in any case

4. if the main subject is on order of only 20-30' away, the slightest, slightest focusing changes, and I mean SLIGHTEST, can have quite a great effect as to what nearest corners look like and what farther corners or far away center top detail look like; this means it's pretty important to be shown all corners and center, if some test just picks one corners to compare, forget it since it could easily be a focus nudge as the lens performance itself, at least if you see all corners you can see if the DOF placement was a bit different and if far stuff seems crisper on one shot and near on another; I'm guessing if you chose a focus subject a good deal farther away, maybe 50'+ perhaps it becomes less sensitive to tiny, minute focus changes

5. I've seen some talk that the 16-35 f/4 IS has a weird tone shift, all I can say is it seems almost impossible to tell apart from my 24-70 II. Perhaps the older 17-40L and 16-35 2.8 had a different tint than the new glass. I don't have those to compare with at the moment. At the least, it seems to give the same color balance as the 24-70 II pretty much. Probably a bit less yellow than Tamron 28-75 tint.

6. 24-70 II has considerably more distortion at 24mm than the 16-35 f/4 IS when they are focused at the 25' ballpark

7. fully correcting for 24-70 II 24mm distortion when focused at the 25' ballpark does seem to rob away a bit of microcontrast and tiny bits of res; if the 24-70 II is sharper than the 16-35 f/4 IS then I'm pretty sure it's equal, at best, if both are fully corrected for distortion (of course many landscapers don't always bother with distortion correction) from what I can see

8. you;d think that mounting lenses onto a camera locked in place on a tripod would have all the lenses aiming the exact same way. but again and again, I've noticed while doing lens tests that lens to lens the scene tends to shift a bit. I used to think maybe it was just slightly knocking something, but I've now seen a consistent direction in change for some lenses so I think it must be that most lenses all have the mount or something tilted just a bit differently. I saw a clear difference between my 70-300L and 70-200 f/4 IS and tamron 70-300VC and I can see a difference between two copies of 16-35 f/4 IS, in the latter case I can see that one copy consistently has the scene shifted a touch vertically, one of the copies seems closer to my 24-70 II but not quite the same. I recall various 24-70 II not aligning up in a target quite the same way either. If the shift or tilt is enough I bet it also makes it harder to test things out evenly in comparison with real world shots. The difference can be enough that for a real world shot you'd want to slightly reframe your scene swapping between different copies of the same lens. I bet the body mounts are all slightly different too.





Jul 07, 2014 at 09:37 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


9. Part of me is suspicious that with the complex lenses of today, that perhaps different lens designs don't apportion the DOF in the same ratio in front and back of the plane of 100% perfect focus center frame. I'm not sure if that is possible or not. I almost want to think that the 24-70 II focused at around 25' ends up with DOF shifted a touch forward compared to the 16-35 f/4 IS Not sure though at all. (of course it could easily happen if something is titled so that top frame is say focusing closer than bottom frame too) Anyway not sure.

10. It seems like out of a whole bunch of shots there always seems to be at least one where the 24-70 II has this crazy mad sharpness on the main target pehaps better than the 16-35 f/4 IS, but I haven't been taking enough trials to be sure it's anything. I do have one frame that has a crazy peak main target sharpness that is just a bit better than any of the shots from the 16-35s, OTOH the trees that are farther back are a touch softer than all of the good 16-35 shots. Not sure if a minute tweak forward of the focus would've brought a 16-35 frame to the same crazy target sharpness or not.

11. I found one frame from the 24-70 II and a 16-35 f/4 IS where the 24-70 II had the far away trees more in the same ballpark as the 16-35 and same for the front corners, in this case the 16-35 almost seemed a trace sharper at the main target, for sure if distortion correction was applied to the 24-70 II.

12. it almost seemed like one 16-35 may have done front lower near corners just a touch better than the other, but also perhaps be a touch softer midframe, hard to be sure; The 24-70 II kept getting the extreme upper left corner of the this scene crisper than the 16-35s, etc. etc. it's hard to figure stuff out since corner to corner with copy variation and focus tweaks and so on.




Jul 07, 2014 at 09:53 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


I will do a careful test chart sort of test and see what that shows.

Probably fair to say the 16-35 f/4 IS holds up pretty well at 24mm f/8 and nothing to worry about (even just for the CA differences alone I suspect it might do better compared to the older zooms at 24mm than some test numbers imply; I still plan to give it comparison to a 16-35 2.8 II).

Whether it is a bit better or worse, it's possible might depend upon the exact scene (in some cases it seems like 24-70 II might be a bit sharper at main subject if you let DOF fall where it may and maybe about the same if you try to balance it all at least at certain particular focusing and subject/scene distances) and where you wish DOF to be and copy variation.

If you are one who does always apply distortion correction (again many landscape people do not though) then I'm pretty sure the 16-35 f/4 IS will perform at least as crisply in the bulk of the frame, if not more so, since I have the impression that the correction needs to shift things around enough to at least, if not more, than counter any potential micro-contrast or resolution advantage the 24-70 II might possibly have under certain circumstances, at least that is what it seemed like in PS.



Jul 07, 2014 at 09:56 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


pKai wrote:
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
...Show more

since you have no complaints at all now, I don't see any reason to bother

otoh, you keep asking about if has better IQ, so maybe you secretly do have some complaints about your current lens?

anyway, if f/2.8 doesn't matter the 16-35 f/4 IS, costing less and performing at least as well it seems likely, would be the better buy for you, already owning the 2.8 II I guess it depends how much you can get for it, could you sell the 2.8 and buy the f/4 IS and get some money back? or would you lose enough on the 2.8 to have the swap cost you money? if you could get money out of the swap it would likely be a no loose (unless by a surprise the 16-35 II ends up doing better for some important things somehow, although it doesn't seem too likely)

anyway I hope to compare it to a 16-35 2.8 sometimes over the next month

perhaps underwater and fine differences tend to get washed away?



Jul 07, 2014 at 10:03 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


100% crop across the center frame 24mm f/8:
crop crop



Jul 07, 2014 at 10:38 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


No CA correction applied 200% crops, 24mm f/8:

left edge:
16-35 f/4 IS:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5484/14601164282_3ca510857a_o.jpg

24-70 II:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14415166108_79fc98a3fc_o.jpg

left upper outer mid-frame:
16-35 f/4 IS:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3885/14415167258_a0849cd9f7_o.jpg

24-70 II:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3840/14621846963_39fde5433c_o.jpg

24-70 II has almost infinitely more lateral 1st order R/G CA (perhaps some hidden 2nd order B/Y lateral CA), the 24-70 II doesn't really have all that much, it's just the 16-35 has like just about none at 24mm f/8. 16-35 f/4 IS showing a little bit of 2nd order B/Y lateral CA.

Although these types, unless too extreme, usually correct relatively well in programs.



Jul 07, 2014 at 11:00 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


mogud wrote:
^^ +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.


Ho hum reviews by PZ are par for the course. I'm not even bothering to read their tests. Look at what others have been posting for real information on this lens.

This lens is about vastly improved corner sharpness over the current UWA zooms. Centre sharpness of the 16-35 II is already excellent so I didn't expect much difference there. Old 17-40 was better at the long end, 16-35 II was optimised for the 16-24 range and was probably not as good as mk I in 24-35 range, this lens looks superb in 16-24 and still strong through to 35 if not quite as good. As the TDP review shows the new 16-35 f/4 is as good or better at f/4 in the corners as the 16-35 f/.8 II @ f/11.

I'd like to see the Canon up against the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, but given both of those are big, heavy and can't take filters with out hassle and expense, this Canon is looking like a great improvement for long suffering Canon users.



Jul 08, 2014 at 12:46 AM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


100% complete across top of the frame crop, 16-35 f/4 IS on 5D3 at 24mm f/8, fully processed:
top crop

oh and don't mind the grit and noise in the corners, they were heavily shaded and a quick and dirty leveling revealed the typical horrible Canon low ISO DR, I didn't bother trying to clean them up and not apply the wrong types of sharpening to them since that isn't the point of this test, just keep in mind that has 100% nothing to do with the lens (other than a trace of vignetting pushing them even lower) and 99.9% to do with the sensor (plus quick and dirty processing)

as a side note, this lens test image is proof that another 2-3 stops DR at low ISO WOULD make a big difference for regular shots and it is not either 10 is good enough or you need 20 as some keep trying to claim (mostly on CR and DPR these days); at least there is always the A7R now in case the next Canon round doesn't come through



Jul 08, 2014 at 12:49 AM
pointbob
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


well this will knock down the price of used 16-35 2.8s


Jul 08, 2014 at 12:31 PM
gipper53
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


Pixel Perfect wrote:
Ho hum reviews by PZ are par for the course. I'm not even bothering to read their tests. Look at what others have been posting for real information on this lens.



Photozone said the lens was good and an improvement in Canon ultrawides. Their reviews may seem "ho-hum", but they don't go dancing in the streets and proclaim this lens is gift from a higher power as some do. To me they seem to tell it like it is and not get emotional just because it's a new L.

It's a solid lens, but there is still room for improvement.



Jul 08, 2014 at 12:43 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


gipper53 wrote:
Photozone said the lens was good and an improvement in Canon ultrawides. Their reviews may seem "ho-hum", but they don't go dancing in the streets and proclaim this lens is gift from a higher power as some do. To me they seem to tell it like it is and not get emotional just because it's a new L.

It's a solid lens, but there is still room for improvement.


No lens has ever existed and no lens ever will exist that leaves "no room for improvement."

There will be no "dancing in the streets" and lenses are not "gift(s) from a higher power..." unless you think of Canon as a higher power. ;-)



Jul 08, 2014 at 12:57 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


gdanmitchell wrote:
No lens has ever existed and no lens ever will exist that leaves "no room for improvement."

There will be no "dancing in the streets" and lenses are not "gift(s) from a higher power..." unless you think of Canon as a higher power. ;-)


Well the Canon super-tele are close!



Jul 08, 2014 at 02:08 PM
skibum5
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


Not sure what to say about the World Cup game at this point, what can be said really, so lenses it is....

Doing more random shooting, it seems like it really does behave quite well edge to edge for a standard to uwa FF zoom for edge performance and CA, very, very well. Still not sure where it will fall in the realm of absolute peak center frame and midframe sharpness yet. Seems a good deal better than when I randomly snapped any 24-105 around for edges and CA.



Jul 08, 2014 at 03:50 PM
pKai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


skibum5 wrote:
since you have no complaints at all now, I don't see any reason to bother


I had no complaints in 1979 using a Nikon F2 with a Nikkor 43-86..... That lens is considered garbage today.

skibum5 wrote:
otoh, you keep asking about if has better IQ, so maybe you secretly do have some complaints about your current lens?


Not really...... "The best" keeps getting better..... if this is the case here, I may be interested....

skibum5 wrote:
anyway, if f/2.8 doesn't matter the 16-35 f/4 IS, costing less and performing at least as well it seems likely, would be the better buy for you, already owning the 2.8 II I guess it depends how much you can get for it, could you sell the 2.8 and buy the f/4 IS and get some money back? or would you lose enough on the 2.8 to have the swap cost you money? if you could get money out of the swap it would likely be a no loose (unless by a surprise the 16-35 II ends up doing better
...Show more

I doubt I could sell my 2.8 used, get the F4 and end up with money in my pocket..... It may be close, however....

skibum5 wrote:
anyway I hope to compare it to a 16-35 2.8 sometimes over the next month


I eagerly await this as well as reviews from the underwater guys at places like wetpixel.com

skibum5 wrote:
perhaps underwater and fine differences tend to get washed away?


Perhaps.... as I said earlier... most work is done stopped down due to the fact that most work is up close and DoF is important...... Wide angles are useful underwater so one can get very close and get a whole subject in the frame -- very different use from "topside".... Additionally, one of the huge advantages of 2.8 -- OOF backgrounds and nice bokeh -- is completely meaningless underwater....

This is an interesting lens indeed.... thanks for your input!




Jul 09, 2014 at 11:23 AM
Invertalon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


I did notice some copy variation in both 16-35 f/4 IS's I did play around with. One was a hair sharper in the center at 16mm, but had a poor performing right corner it looked like. It also showed signs of decentering at 35mm (right 1/4 frame softer than left).

The other copy, was a hair less sharp in the center and has a slightly weaker performing left side (compared to the right). It tends to depend on the focus point and such with how sharp the left side is (the right side does not seem so picky). 35mm performance is flawless across the frame. I ended up choosing this lens out of the two for overall performance. When I say the left side is less sharp at 16mm, it is nothing significant... Details are still very good and can only really see the difference when viewing at 100%. Probably normal tolerance with this lens (or any UWA). I know no lens is perfect.

I wonder though if I send it to Canon at some point if they can check/adjust the centering/tilt easily on this lens, compared to the 17-40/16-35 which they suck at. Curious once Roger at lens rentals tears this one apart and we see what is inside this lens! (hopefully).

Overall though, much higher performance than the 17-40 and 16-35. I am happy with it! I am curious though if Canon has a faster, wider brother planned in the future... If they released a 12-24mm for example, I would be all over that one.



Jul 10, 2014 at 07:12 AM
RCicala
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


I haven't had enough stock to tear one apart yet, although I've been testing them for a couple of weeks now.

Bottom line on testing was the copy variation was greater than I expected: not that any were awful but each and every one had a weak point. So after testing 10 of them, I decided I needed to repeat the same tests with 17-40s and 16-35 f/2.8 II because we've never tested wide zooms on the optical bench before. And then repeat them all on Imatest because that's what we usually test on (although I hadn't planned on it, since with Imatest we're testing so close to MFD at 16mm).

It's been a complex problem, but the bottom line is the 16-35 f/4 IS is better than either the 17-40 or the 16-35 f/2.8 II shot at f/4 - at least once you're off center. The difference is more appreciable at infinity than at very close Imatest distances (which is what I've thought would be the case all along).

But the amount of copy to copy variation is noticeable. Not just with this lens but with the 17-40 and 16-35 f/2.8 II when I test to these standars. So far out of 10 of each there is none, repeat none, that don't have at least one softer corner at one end of the zoom range. I guess it's just the limitations of designing a zoom that wide.

The good news is the soft corner of a 16-35 f/4 IS is sharper than the sharp corner of a 17-40 or 16-35 f/2.8.

As to Canon recentering them, I wouldn't put a lot of hope in that. And I speak from over 100 copies of the 16-35 and 17-40 sent in to Canon for recentering. There's a reason we spent a small fortune on optical testing equipment (other than that I just wanted to) and spent a few hundred hours learning how to do it ourselves. It's not a money saver -- the investment in equipment would take about 4,000 repairs to pay for itself. It's just the only way we can get it done right.



Jul 10, 2014 at 10:53 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS


RCicala wrote:
As to Canon recentering them, I wouldn't put a lot of hope in that. And I speak from over 100 copies of the 16-35 and 17-40 sent in to Canon for recentering. There's a reason we spent a small fortune on optical testing equipment (other than that I just wanted to) and spent a few hundred hours learning how to do it ourselves. It's not a money saver -- the investment in equipment would take about 4,000 repairs to pay for itself. It's just the only way we can get it done right.


Regarding the ultra-wide zooms, a little bird told me a story recently of a person whose lenses you might think Canon would want to adjust as well as possible, given that this person makes beautiful photographs and writes a lot, who sent in a 17-40 a number of times to try to get it into adjustment but in the end felt that it was still out of whack. Canon was reportedly not very sympathetic.

(That story, coming from a person I trust and about a person I trust, surprised me more than a bit, as I've personally had good luck with Canon service. Perhaps it is just an unfortunate outlier.)

Also, and I think you acknowledged this, copy variation is something that matters differently with different kinds of gear and by the type and magnitude of the variation. If the lenses vary but are generally all quite good, we might be disappointed in the standards of the manufacturing process but still happy with the lenses. On the other hand, if the variation leads to some fine lenses and some unacceptable lenses, we have a different sort of issue.

I got a 16-35 yesterday but only had time for some very quick and superficial tests at close focusing distances across the aperture range. The corners are definitely a lot better at the large apertures and seemed quite good at the smaller apertures at 16mm. I hope to use the thing in more realistic ways today and tomorrow.

Dan



Jul 10, 2014 at 11:43 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.