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      
4
       5       end
  

EF 16-35/4L IS test images
  
 
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


Gunzorro wrote:
Rusty -- Like I said, I'd rather be sitting on 5-year-old top quality glass, because it makes even older camera's images look better while waiting for better sensors!


+1 @ "glass rules"



Aug 22, 2014 at 02:48 PM
Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


gdanmitchell wrote:
"Coke bottle?" Something was seriously wrong with his testing methodology or his lens! ;-)


That is relatively speaking of course, but then again, none of the "classic" 50/1.4s seem to be very sharp / contrasty wide open anyways.



Aug 22, 2014 at 04:09 PM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


I would like to mention a few things:

1) Both the Canon MTF graphs for the new 16-35/4 and the TSE17 and Photozone mtf test scores show the 17 being sharper in the corners than the new 16-35/4 at f8 which is what i use most of the time gor landscapes.
The 17 with its much larger image circle is a more constant performer across the frame starting out in the center not as sharp as the 16-35/4 butb then not dipping as much as you go towards the edges and corners.
2) No one mentions anything about Distortion but the new 16-35/4 has slightly more distortion than the 16-35/2.8 and a lot more than the TSE17 and the Zeiss 18 at the wide end (16mm). I am not a fan of wides with a lot of distortion especially for architecture but also for landscapes. To be fair, the lens profile to correct the barrel distortion should be applied to each lens before comparing sharpness as the correction of barrel distortion lowers/ affects sharpness/resolution.
I like how the building on the edge of one of the test shots is rendered standing straight up and not distorted and leaning over like on the other lenses.
When designing wide angle lenses you can always trade off higher distortion for better sharpness like the Samyang 14. I prefer the less distortion lenses like the TSE17 and Zeiss 21 which are sharp across the whole frame.
3) The TSE17 and Nikon 14-24G with adapter has much less vignetting with their bulbous front elements than the 16-35 f4 and 2.8.
4) I prefer same AOV testing of a planar building wall perpendicular to the camera like Lloyd Chambers lens tests. I prefer their much closer focusing/ not infinity focused type shots as I usually use my wides with focus biased more on the close foreground subject rather than infinity objects in the landscape shot.
Also one needs to be aware of FC which csn affect corner/edge results.

The Canon 16-35/4 lens looks to improve on the 2.8 at the loss of a stop and slight more distortion. It looks to be biased for much better performance at f4 and f5.6 and less so at f8 which I use most often.
According to Photozone lens test results, Canon really improved the CA correction by a lot compared to the 2.8 but to such low levels, even slightly below the mighty Zeiss 21.





Aug 24, 2014 at 02:29 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


Snopchenko wrote:
That is relatively speaking of course, but then again, none of the "classic" 50/1.4s seem to be very sharp / contrasty wide open anyways.


It suffers from halation wide open, which mostly means that you might want to up the contrast (or, these days, "clarity") to compensate sometimes. Stop down by a half stop and it is fine.

Dan



Aug 24, 2014 at 03:59 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


Good points @ distortion Wayne. The Tokina 16-28 has been on my radar for its distortion / resolution balance ... it also has a bulbous front element to help with such matters.

I'm not a fan of the mustache distortion that Zeiss/Tamron uses and to date have accepted the vignetting of the Oly 18 in lieu of the more distortion on the UWA front. Taking a look at (ahem, test shots), the 16-35/4 looks "manageable" distortion, even if not ideally as well corrected as say the 17L TS-E or the 24L TS-E II.

I'm thinking that the 16-35/4 could make a really nice one-two punch on the WA/UWA end of things mated with my 24L TS-E II ... where the challenges of UWA/WA can be full of challenges @ choose your poison. A "little" distortion may be a tolerable trade-off for the convenience (and AF) of the zoom ... moving to the TS-E II when most critical applications warrant.

Edited on Aug 24, 2014 at 04:12 AM · View previous versions



Aug 24, 2014 at 04:00 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


wayne seltzer wrote:
To be fair, the lens profile to correct the barrel distortion should be applied to each lens before comparing sharpness as the correction of barrel distortion lowers/ affects sharpness/resolution.


Well, yes, but... the difference in the sharpness between the uncorrected and the corrected image is essentially imperceptible. I know that the theory says that resampling can only result in a loss of data, and I cannot quarrel with that logic. However, after using the correction defaults and doing even more radical "corrections" in post, I can report that the reality is that you'd have to make much, much more radical adjustments before you would see any difference.



Aug 24, 2014 at 04:03 AM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


wayne seltzer wrote:
I would like to mention a few things:

1) Both the Canon MTF graphs for the new 16-35/4 and the TSE17 and Photozone mtf test scores show the 17 being sharper in the corners than the new 16-35/4 at f8 which is what i use most of the time gor landscapes.
The 17 with its much larger image circle is a more constant performer across the frame starting out in the center not as sharp as the 16-35/4 butb then not dipping as much as you go towards the edges and corners.
2) No one mentions anything about Distortion but the new
...Show more

So I have had this lens for a couple of days, and have tested it a bit with both close and infinity subject, as well as some field test with it last night.

1. point 1 I have no comment other than the lens performs very well at the wide end to the corners.
2. ACR does a much better job of correcting distortion for 16-35. I always use to have a slight wave to my horizon with corrected 16-35II and with f4 I dont. You do loose some real state from the corners as well as theoretically resolution, but I am with Dan, I just dont see it. I am sure its there but I dont see it. I also have the samyang 14. of course the distortion is a lot more with samyang. even there I dont see the loss in resolution by correcting it, but the distortion int the 16-35 is not really not bad.
3. I have owned and used the 14-24g on my Canon. unless you want to shoot nightscape, 16-35f4 IS is clearly the better choice on canon, and I would even argue on the sony. the Nikon is a flare monster, does not take filters, has a lot more ca, and you cant autocorrect distortion on a canon body (which seems to be an issue with you). Canon has a more useful range, and has IS, and in my opinion, having used both, they are optically very similar. Canon is that good. In addition you dont have to use an adapter on a canon body, retain AF, and not worry about the adapter screwing up image quality. the 16-35f4 IS is simply the best landscape zoom available right now, except if you need 2.8 for nightscapes.
4. I have done close forground checks on the lens, and there was also a brick wall test posted on the net with raw files, and the lens performs very well.

Now the lens does not do shifting. I have my tse 24 II, and I may hold on to it. certainly if you are doing architectural work, I think TS is great. This is even more the case at 17mm, where you want your sensor vertical.

Now, I did this hand held shot last night, 35mm f6.3, 1/13 iso 250
peninsula by kevindar, on Flickr
100% crop of left very near the edge
flickr-2180-2 by kevindar, on Flickr
here is also showing how it does for flare
flickr-2059 by kevindar, on Flickr

flickr-2170 by kevindar, on Flickr
This really is a truly fantastic UWA zoom lens, with prime like performance and IS.

Sorry for the long winded post



Aug 24, 2014 at 04:13 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


kevindar wrote:
Sorry for the long winded post


Didn't seem that long to me... ;-) (He writes, aware of the self-deprecating irony, and running of cover...)

But, seriously, this new lens is turning out to be a very worth offering from Canon, and it is hard to find any serious fault with it. It isn't "perfect," but it appears to be a start of the art ultra-wide zoom lens.

From my perspective — though I'm sure opinions will differ — it is also some evidence for those of us who feel that over the long haul it makes sense to stick with whatever sort of gear we chose (Nikon, Canon, whatever), even when other manufacturers produce excellent pieces of gear that measure better than what we have. This is, in my view, true on more than one basis:

1. In the same way that the Nikon ultra-wide was arguably state of the art for some time (and envied by many shooting Canon), the new 16-35 is now state of the art.

2. The lesser lenses that we "put up with" for a while were/are still used to produce a ton of great photographic work and the real and measurable technical differences that can be so clearly revealed in close looks on the test bench turn out to be much less significant in actual photography.

The Nikon 14-24, a truly excellent lens, was not a compelling reason for Canon shooters to switch to Nikon, any more than the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, also a truly excellent lens, is a reason for Nikon shooters to switch to Canon.

Yeah, there is that Sony thing... ;-)

Dan



Aug 24, 2014 at 04:46 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


A little OT ... but I'm ordering a 16-35/4 today and a "starter" set of filters UV/CP/ND for it (I've got nothing else in 77mm) to go with it.

@ brand diff between Tiffen vs. Hoya ... or doesn't make much diff. The set I'm looking at is about twice the price for one vs. the other, but the more $$$ one has .9ND vs. .6ND.

I get the diff in ND ... but are there any quality advantage/disadvantage @ Tiffen vs. Hoya. B&H seems heavy loaded with Tiffen products, but for some reason (years ago @ dead brain cells) I seem to recall some good things @ Hoya.

I can go either way @ .6ND or .9ND ... just preferring that the UV/CP be of the better quality product.

Thoughts



Aug 24, 2014 at 04:54 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


rusty, not a believer in uv filters, unless you are shooting at the beach, and are worried about sand (even there I am not). as for CP, Kenko and Hoya are the same, kenko is usually cheaper. Brand is not as important, make sure you are getting a multi coated filter. My favorite brand is Marumi super DGH, which in test does very well, and is cheaper than b&w, Singhray, and some other super expensive brand. i also have a hoya pro 1 which does well, and is 77mm so I use it with this lens.
As for ND, I use square ones with adapters, since I like using GND also. ND's are tricky as they can cause a cyan or magenta cast. the darker they are, the more likely. that much said, I would get at least a 3 stop (Nd .9) if you are inclined to get one.



Aug 24, 2014 at 05:08 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



unclechuck
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


Quote of the Day; actually Quote of the Month --- applies to at least a half dozen Forum threads.

RustyBug wrote:
I have more faith that Canon will "catch up" on the sensor side before Sony will "catch up" on the optics side.



Aug 24, 2014 at 08:05 PM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


kevindar wrote:

ND's are tricky as they can cause a cyan or magenta cast. the darker they are, the more likely.


What is it about ND that causes the magenta cast. I've noticed that in my (literally) "darker than 000" prescription sunglasses that I wanted to be neutral.

I don't use many UV filters either, but do go trompin' through the brush and sometimes prefer a filter to a cap when I don't have a long lens hood. I do the cap thing about twice, then stop putting it back on. Nice to have one for shooting around the dirt track, and industrial sites, etc. ... which is probably my greater need (equipment slingin' oil fine mist oil in the air, etc. You just never know where I might wind up, so it's nice to have some protection available for your investment glass when you're putting it up to some extremes (although, maybe I should look into the Canon Protect filter @ hmmm).

Which raises the question @ what (rough ballpark) would a replacement front element cost for a 16-35/4?



Aug 24, 2014 at 08:26 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


unclechuck wrote:
Quote of the Day; actually Quote of the Month --- applies to at least a half dozen Forum threads.


Over time, both brands do quite well, and you couldn't go wrong selecting and sticking with either. :-)

Dan



Aug 24, 2014 at 08:38 PM
pipspeak
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


RustyBug wrote:
Which raises the question @ what (rough ballpark) would a replacement front element cost for a 16-35/4?


A lot more than a replacement filter. Around $400-$500 is typical for L zooms IIRC





Aug 24, 2014 at 08:40 PM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


Well, I guess the thread has a new topic...


Aug 24, 2014 at 08:45 PM
StillFingerz
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


Jim, thanks for all the testing/images, seems I'll be saving for the 16-35. Even tho my 17-40 is stellar I've always wanted the extra mm and with IS as an option I'm sold.

I noticed to items, first the focus/zoom rings seem wider and the distance between mm's seems wider as well. Both features should make for more precise usage which is a good thing.



Aug 24, 2014 at 09:06 PM
unclechuck
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


StillFingerz wrote:
Jim, thanks for all the testing/images, seems I'll be saving for the 16-35. Even tho my 17-40 is stellar I've always wanted the extra mm and with IS as an option I'm sold.


I Second Jerry's Motion! Terrific Post reflecting focused experience and a LOT of meticulous, time consuming work.

Made a 16-35L f/4 buyer of me too; likely later when Canon dangles those festive Holiday carrots next to the mistletoe.

Thank You again!



Aug 24, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


RustyBug wrote:
A little OT ... but I'm ordering a 16-35/4 today and a "starter" set of filters UV/CP/ND for it (I've got nothing else in 77mm) to go with it.

@ brand diff between Tiffen vs. Hoya ... or doesn't make much diff. The set I'm looking at is about twice the price for one vs. the other, but the more $$$ one has .9ND vs. .6ND.

I get the diff in ND ... but are there any quality advantage/disadvantage @ Tiffen vs. Hoya. B&H seems heavy loaded with Tiffen products, but for some reason (years ago @ dead brain cells) I
...Show more

Hoya has better filters, mostly due to excellent multi-coating. Go with their better models, such as Super HMC, Pro-1 and up.

(We'll now return to our regularly scheduled topic. . . )



Aug 25, 2014 at 01:17 AM
RustyBug
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


Thanks for indulging the departure ... back on.

16-35/4L IS and Pro 1 CP on its way.



Aug 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM
khurram1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · EF 16-35/4L IS test images


For those that upgraded/updated to the new 16-35 F4L, how happy are you with the distortion compared to the 16-35L II? The new lens is reported as being sharper, but is the distortion seem higher than the 16-35L II

I just read the Ephotozine review and the distortion on their test photos seems horrible compared to anything i've seen with my 16-35L II.



Aug 27, 2014 at 03:50 AM
1       2       3      
4
       5       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password