Home · Register · Software · Software · 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       4       end
  

Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS
  
 
rek101
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


I purchased the 16 35 f/4 IS refurbished as I occasionally like taking wide angle photos and often find myself indoors at events appreciating the 24 end of the 24 - 70 2.8 II. I also would really like a quality stabilized 35mm focal length which I was hoping this could be.

After looking at photos taken the last couple of days, I just don't see any pop at all to the images. I look at the 24 - 70 even at 24 and it looks like a contrasty image. When I compare these images to the 16 - 35 f/4 IS at 24mm, I just don't see anything but sharp, but completely lifeless images. I like the focal range, but I just don't understand what all the hype is about.

Are my expectations unrealistic if I'd like 24mm at F/4 to look as good on this lens as the 24 to 70? For what Canon is charging for an f/4 lens, shouldn't this lens be something amazing? What are your experiences with this product?

Edited on Oct 31, 2017 at 11:41 AM · View previous versions



Oct 31, 2017 at 04:07 AM
Mike_5D
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


It is a very well-regarded lens and should look better at 24mm than the 24-70. Mine matches up well with the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II.


Oct 31, 2017 at 04:14 AM
gheller
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


Wonder if you got a dud.

Mine is the best wide angle from Canon I have used (especially for the price).

Sharp and contrasty edge to edge at all apertures

greg



Oct 31, 2017 at 04:45 AM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


Corner-to-corner flat sharpness across the frame is basically unparalleled wide-open on this lens at this price point.

If you want to add pop, add some extra contrast in post or perhaps choose a different subject?

This lens is extremely well regarded, but perhaps you received a poor copy?



Oct 31, 2017 at 04:48 AM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


I have good copies of both lenses and if anything, the 16-35 is even better in sharpness and contrast overall. The weak point is at 35mm where the 24-70 is slightly better, but still, one of my favorite lenses.


Oct 31, 2017 at 05:26 AM
RogerZoul
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


Are you shooting raw or jpeg? Raws should not have much "pop" and for jpeg it depends on which style you are using.


Oct 31, 2017 at 09:13 AM
rek101
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


Raw...if that is the case, perhaps I got a dud. I figured the reviews couldn't all be this positive and there was nothing wrong with what I'm seeing. I'll try another copy. I've had similar frustrations with the canon 35 f/2 IS which I think is very sharp but not contrasty and skin has a plasticy look. I saw the same thing with this lens when I looked at people photos...sharp with little contrast. I guess I'll ship this one back and try a different copy.

Edited on Oct 31, 2017 at 12:00 PM · View previous versions



Oct 31, 2017 at 11:37 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


Mike_5D wrote:
It is a very well-regarded lens and should look better at 24mm than the 24-70. Mine matches up well with the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II.


On a 20 MPx EOS 6D camera, I can't see any meaningful difference in resolution between my 16-35/4L IS and 24-70/4L IS, at 24mm and 35mm, with f/8 and infinity focus (i.e. landscape settings). My 24-70/4L IS is at least as good across the frame as was my 24-70/2.8L II, and no my f/2.8 was not a dud. Neither is my 16-35/4L IS, which is about the same as my Zeiss 18/3.5 ZE, and slightly better than my TS-E 17/4 L.




Oct 31, 2017 at 11:51 AM
melcat
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


When I got this lens I did a side-by-side test against the 2470mm f/4 IS and the 35mm f/1.4 (original). They are all very close.

Have you considered flare as a factor? Ultrawide zooms set to moderate wide are always more prone to it than other lenses at the same focal length, because the hood has to be designed for the widest focal length. (This lens is actuallly an improvement regarding flare over the 1635mm f/2.8 II.)

Edited on Oct 31, 2017 at 10:58 PM · View previous versions



Oct 31, 2017 at 12:00 PM
fplstudio
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


Under same conditions the 16-35 f/4 and the 24-70 ii should perform almost the same, the first with better corners and the second with better iq at 35mm. If as you say the 16-35 delivers lower results than something is wrong. Have you tried to shoot the 16-35 with IS off?


Oct 31, 2017 at 12:09 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



hotdog12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


When I bought one of the first 16-35 f/4L IS, I tested it against my 24-70 f/2.8L II and was surprised at that they produced nearly identical results (sharpness, contrast, resistance to flare, color, chromatic aberration) in the 24-35mm range. In the years I've used it I've been completely satisfied with this lens.

I have no idea what you mean "lifeless." Perhaps you are doing something strange with the post processing or have unrealistic expectations.



Oct 31, 2017 at 12:25 PM
Mikehit
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


rek101 wrote:
After looking at photos taken the last couple of days, I just don't see any pop at all to the images. I look at the 24 - 70 even at 24 and it looks like a contrasty image. When I compare these images to the 16 - 35 f/4 IS at 24mm, I just don't see anything but sharp, but completely lifeless images. I like the focal range, but I just don't understand what all the hype is about.

Are my expectations unrealistic if I'd like 24mm at F/4 to look as good on this lens as the 24 to
...Show more

It seems to me you have no problem with the sharpness of the lens, but the colour rendition. Can you post an image from both lenses with no processing to show what you mean?

Colour rendition comes from the coatings and the glass, so I am not sure why a lens would be a 'dud' in this respect.
And it is nothing that cannot be fixed in post processing.



Oct 31, 2017 at 01:39 PM
Robin Smith
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


I agree with others. I cannot really tell the difference between the 24-70 II and the 16-35 f4 at any of the settings. Not that I pixel peep the comparisons. No idea what you are talking about for the 35/2 IS either. That is a great modern lens. Ultrawide shots can be quite uninteresting partly because the great depth of field can reduce the perception of sharpness and depth, and also because UW shots can actually be dull - empty foregrounds, dull skies, converging verticals, but this is nothing to do with the lens' performance.


Oct 31, 2017 at 02:31 PM
mb126
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


I don't think I get it. It's an ultrawide f/4 zoom -- achieving uniform sharpness across the zoom range is an amazing thing but it's not going to have some magic rendering. Get the original 35L or the Zeiss 35 ZE if you want that.


Oct 31, 2017 at 03:05 PM
dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


mb126 wrote:
I don't think I get it. It's an ultrawide f/4 zoom -- achieving uniform sharpness across the zoom range is an amazing thing but it's not going to have some magic rendering. Get the original 35L or the Zeiss 35 ZE if you want that.


It's the mysterious quality of 'pop' that the OP wants that I don't get.

There's not going to be so much subject separation because it's a wide zoom, it won't have quite the contrast of a Zeiss, but there's a lot you can do in PP.

Maybe it's a bad sample, the first 16-35IS I had needed to go back but overall it's an excellent, sharp, contrasty lens.



Oct 31, 2017 at 04:31 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


I'd suggest some MILC system with Zeiss or other prime glass. Canon and Nikon are not so good for the pop and 3D and other artsy-fartsy qualities.

EBH



Oct 31, 2017 at 04:38 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


I'd suggest some MILC system with Zeiss or other prime glass. Canon and Nikon are not so good for the pop and 3D and other artsy-fartsy qualities.

EBH



Oct 31, 2017 at 04:38 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


I'd suggest some MILC system with Zeiss or other prime glass. Canon and Nikon are not so good for the pop and 3D and other artsy-fartsy qualities.

EBH



Oct 31, 2017 at 04:38 PM
Mike_5D
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


jcolwell wrote:
On a 20 MPx EOS 6D camera, I can't see any meaningful difference in resolution between my 16-35/4L IS and 24-70/4L IS, at 24mm and 35mm, with f/8 and infinity focus (i.e. landscape settings). My 24-70/4L IS is at least as good across the frame as was my 24-70/2.8L II, and no my f/2.8 was not a dud. Neither is my 16-35/4L IS, which is about the same as my Zeiss 18/3.5 ZE, and slightly better than my TS-E 17/4 L.



I haven't compared them side by side. I was basing that on the fact that lenses are usually better in the middle of zoom range than at either extreme. These are all top-notch lenses though.



Oct 31, 2017 at 04:42 PM
rek101
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Realistic expectations 16 35 f/4 IS


dhphoto wrote:
It's the mysterious quality of 'pop' that the OP wants that I don't get.

There's not going to be so much subject separation because it's a wide zoom, it won't have quite the contrast of a Zeiss, but there's a lot you can do in PP.

Maybe it's a bad sample, the first 16-35IS I had needed to go back but overall it's an excellent, sharp, contrasty lens.


pop isn't so mysterious. When our eyes get a lot of detailed contrast information, we perceive 3D and that 3D look which makes us see the image as jumping off the page a bit. Subject separation from bluring out the background is another way to make an image stand out, but it isn't the result of contrast.

I would like to know if I can use the 16 to 35mm as an event lens and I simply can't if the contrast between 24 and 35 is significantly worse at F/4 than with the 24 to 70 zoom. Based on what I'm reading here, it would seem that I have a bad copy and the image quality is similar.



Oct 31, 2017 at 05:20 PM
1
       2       3       4       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password