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 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review

  
 
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review
DxOmark just posted their review on the new EF16-35mm F4L IS USM lens.

Here is an excerpt:
“Adding stabilization in a lens like this is targeting videographers more than stills photographers, where the wide field of view and steadying effect can be put to good use, but it’s a welcome addition all the same. The imaging performance is good, very good in fact, but it’s not without some shortcomings, particularly at the longer end where field curvature provides some unexpected results. Once those are understood and either avoided or worked around, the lens can be a very satisfying performer and at $1,199 this new model doesn’t seem over priced.”

Full Review | Canon EF16-35mm F4L IS USM ($1,199)








Sep 10, 2014 at 03:01 PM
Schlotkins
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


Seems about right. Corners are the big improvement over the 2.8II and the long end is a bit softer. (which is fine - that's what the 24- 70 2.8II is for.) With that said, surprised the sharpness value is only 1 higher.

Chris



Sep 10, 2014 at 11:42 AM
kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


Thats because DXo measures resolution based on sensor limitations rather than measuring the actual sharpness and/or resolution of the lens itself. If you actually want to know about the equipment and not some website's opinion, I recommend you read Rodger's post over at lensrentals.com comparing the canon UWA zooms.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/07/canon-wide-angle-zoom-comparison



Sep 10, 2014 at 11:52 AM
Dreamliner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


For some reason, I simply can not trust the DXOmark lens reviews. For example, how can a website be trusted when in several of it's zoom lens reviews claims that the maximum sharpness is achieved at a single focal lenght's maximum aperture, when my experience had showed me that most -if not all- zoom lenses need to be stopped down at least one f/stop. For me the credibility of that website ends there. (See 70-200 II test)


Sep 10, 2014 at 01:01 PM
Sy Sez
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


In the film era, a standard such as Kodachrome ASA-50 could be used with any lens/body combo to do a fair & equal lpm. resolution test.

As Kezeka stated, with digital sensors of varying resolutions, there is no real standard of comparison for lens testing.

"Here's" a good example:

The Zeiss Otus 85mm 1.4 Apo Planar lens scores a "49" on a Nikon D800E; while the "same" lens scores only a "38" on an EOS 5Diii

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Zeiss-Otus-85mm-f1.4-Apo-Planar-T-Canon-ZE-and-Nikon-ZF.2-mount-lens-reviews-World-s-best-performing-85mm-portrait-lens/Carl-Zeiss-Apo-Planar-T-Otus-85mm-F14-ZE-Canon-mounted-on-body-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-Sharpness-limited-by-sensor

To obtain meaningful results in the digital age would require a "state of the art", "super" high resolution test camera modified, or designed to accept "all" lenses.

Leigh



Sep 10, 2014 at 01:52 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


Dreamliner wrote:
For some reason, I simply can not trust the DXOmark lens reviews. For example, how can a website be trusted when in several of it's zoom lens reviews claims that the maximum sharpness is achieved at a single focal lenght's maximum aperture, when my experience had showed me that most -if not all- zoom lenses need to be stopped down at least one f/stop. For me the credibility of that website ends there. (See 70-200 II test)


If you take the time to read how the score is calculated, you will see that the T-stop is included in the score. Meaning that a faster lens with the same sharpness and aberrations as a slower lens will get higher score. You may agree or disagree with the usefulness of this, but it does not take away a cent from the usefulness of their individual measurements or the credibility of the site.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/DxOMark-Score



Sep 10, 2014 at 02:19 PM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


Schlotkins wrote:
Here's the review:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF16-35mm-F4L-IS-USM-lens-review-Canon-s-best-wide-angle-zoom-yet

Seems about right. Corners are the big improvement over the 2.8II and the long end is a bit softer. (which is fine - that's what the 24- 70 2.8II is for.) With that said, surprised the sharpness value is only 1 higher.

Chris


So basically according to DXo the 16-35 f4L IS and the 17-40L get the same Sharpness (P-Mpix) score of 15. But looking into the data the 17-40L gets that score at 24mm and f4 and the 16-35mm f4L IS at 16mm and f4.

That makes the new lens the best for use at the wider angle settings.

That is the thing about DXo. One has to dig into their numbers to get the truth. The "superficial" ratings seen at first glance can be deceiving.



Sep 10, 2014 at 02:55 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


I've owned the 17-40L, 16-35/2.8L, 16-35/2.8L II, and 16-35/4L IS. I've done considerable testing of these lenses with both resolution targets and real world subjects (mostly scenic at f/8), and posted many comparison threads on the Canon and Alt forums. They're all sharp in the centre. The 16-35/4L IS is best at the edges and in the corners at all common focal lengths, much better than the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2.8L, and a little better than the Mk II.


Sep 10, 2014 at 03:03 PM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


I think photozone.de measurements of reviewing this lens and comparing it to others is more useful that dxomark The dxomark is too opaque in what they mean by sharpness - centre average, how averaged. And the total score 22 is not much useful at all - it implies some weighting that is again not transparent.

Photozone shows

[ http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1 ]

16-35f4 has less vignetting and way less ca, but fairly close on resolution to 16-35 2.8 v2, at 16mm/f5.6.

Wheras as compared to 17-40L, it has way better resolution in corners and better CA. So clearly better.

And compared to my favorite prime TS17 - 16-35f2.8v2 and 16-35f4 have way higher barrel distortion. But all similar for resolution. The17-40 which sucks at barrel distortion and edge resolution. So TS17 best, followed by 16-35 f4 (for less CA), closel followed by 16-35 v2, way followed by 17-40.




Sep 10, 2014 at 03:42 PM
Dreamliner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


alundeb wrote:
If you take the time to read how the score is calculated, you will see that the T-stop is included in the score. Meaning that a faster lens with the same sharpness and aberrations as a slower lens will get higher score. You may agree or disagree with the usefulness of this, but it does not take away a cent from the usefulness of their individual measurements or the credibility of the site.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/DxOMark-Score


I am referring to the measure that says "Best at 85 mm f/1,4" for example (see several 85 mm lens tests at their site). Not the overall rating. There is no lens that is best at it's maximum f/number. Sharpness wise or aberration wise. Especially if it is very "fast". That is a law of physics. Every MTF provided by lens makers or labs that perform lens tests agrees with that. Except DXO.



Sep 10, 2014 at 04:03 PM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


I find Dxomark pretty useless on lenses , much better places to look.


Sep 10, 2014 at 04:21 PM
Schlotkins
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


Hi Fred:

Glad you gave this thread a proper introduction. Just curious if you tried this lens on your A7r yet?

Thanks!
Chris



Sep 10, 2014 at 04:25 PM
msteve1
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


Much of what Canon does these days is with video in mind. I thought everyone knew that. Even so, I'm one of those who finds image stabilization useful at every focal range. Pictures like this one, hand held at 0.3 seconds with the intent of capturing motion blur, are exactly why I wanted it.

http://www.msbphoto.com/img/s6/v142/p541742036-4.jpg



Sep 10, 2014 at 04:28 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


If you are looking at DxOMark results and you are NOT looking at Measurements -> Sharpness -> Field Maps to compare sharpness across the frame at various focal lengths and apertures, you are doing it wrong.


Sep 10, 2014 at 05:18 PM
kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


johnctharp wrote:
If you are looking at DxOMark results and you are NOT looking at Measurements -> Sharpness -> Field Maps to compare sharpness across the frame at various focal lengths and apertures, you are doing it wrong.


Again, if you want nuanced results that actually describe a lens and not a sensor you should be looking at Rodger Cicala's data.

The best thing about the vast amounts of nearly raw data displayed in beautiful charts over at lensrentals.com is that you can interpret it for yourself instead of having some random dude throw his opinions around on DXo.



Sep 10, 2014 at 06:35 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


I didn't mention opinions, purposefully- and with respect to sensors, a little digging around DxO shows that their Field Maps are fairly representative of what happens when sensor resolution is increased.

I do suggest skipping their reviews.



Sep 10, 2014 at 08:26 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


Dreamliner wrote:
I am referring to the measure that says "Best at 85 mm f/1,4" for example (see several 85 mm lens tests at their site). Not the overall rating. There is no lens that is best at it's maximum f/number. Sharpness wise or aberration wise. Especially if it is very "fast". That is a law of physics. Every MTF provided by lens makers or labs that perform lens tests agrees with that. Except DXO.


"Best at" refers to the focal length and aperture where the highest DxoMark Score is acheived. That is the overall score. Again, that includes T-Stop. They rate lenses based on their ability to photograph a low-light scene, not only MTF and aberrations. We can ignore the score if we don't need it, but if you assume that DxO don't record that lenses improve in sharpness stopped down, you are wrong.



Sep 11, 2014 at 12:42 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


-

Edited on Sep 12, 2014 at 08:53 PM · View previous versions



Sep 11, 2014 at 02:28 AM
alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


gdanmitchell wrote:
DXO has the veneer of objectivity and, as a result, gets a lot of attention. But the context is so complex and often of questionable relevance to real photography that the results often do not mean what the "values" assigned to lenses seem to suggest.

A simple test is to make some photographs with the lenses in question (likely the 16-35 f/2.8 L II, 17-40 f/4 L, and 16-35mm f/4 L IS) and look at photographic results. In terms of the real world effect of choosing among these lenses, this will be a lot clearer and straightforward than trying to sleuth
...Show more

If it only was that easy. First, we need access to the lenses in question. Then we need to do everything right in the test. This requires some skills and thoughtfullness. Many members here on FM are up to that tasks, but there are also many examples of home made tests that are directly misleading.

Regarding DxO numbers, I do not recommend trying to interpret the metrics and scores, as they are obscure and represent some odd weighting choices. My point in the response above was only that you cannot use the oddity in the scores to dismiss the individual measurements without even bothering to read the explanation. Looking at the field maps or profiles gives fast access to a general idea of how many lenses perform at the magnification / subject distance used in the test.



Sep 11, 2014 at 03:18 AM
Dreamliner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · DXOMark posted 16-35mm f/4L IS review


Thanks for the clarification! I will check it out more thoroughly. ☺

alundeb wrote:
"Best at" refers to the focal length and aperture where the highest DxoMark Score is acheived. That is the overall score. Again, that includes T-Stop. They rate lenses based on their ability to photograph a low-light scene, not only MTF and aberrations. We can ignore the score if we don't need it, but if you assume that DxO don't record that lenses improve in sharpness stopped down, you are wrong.




Sep 11, 2014 at 03:53 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.