about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
20 24070 Jun 19, 2015
Recommended By Average Price
100% of reviewers $1,190.46
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.90
9.20
10.0
Screen_Shot_2014-07-21_at_8_05_15_PM_copy

Specifications:
Focal Length: 16-35mm
APS Equivalent: 26-56mm
Max Aperture: f/4
Min Aperture: f/22
Diaphragm Blades: 9 (circular)
Lens Construction: 16 elements in 12 groups, including 3 aspherical and 2 UD elements, fluorine coating
Diagonal Angle of View
(Based on image circle): 108.2 to 63 degrees
Focus Details: Inner focusing; full-time manual focus and USM
Front Element Rotation: No
Zoom System: Rotary
Closest Focus: 0.28m / 0.92 ft.
Magnification Ratio: 0.23x / 1:4.3 (at 35mm)
Filter Size 77mm
Dimensions
(Length x Diameter): 112.8mm x 82.6mm / 4.44 in. x 3.25 in.
Weight: 615g / 1.36 lb
Notes: Image Stabilization (up to four stop correction); Dust and moisture resistant; Includes lens hood, soft pouch.


 


Page:  1 · 2  next
       †††
AlexDROP
Online
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 3, 2011
Location: Russia
Posts: 200
Review Date: Jun 19, 2015 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $900.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Incredible sharpness across a frame on every focal length and aperture. Low price that seems to be the lowest in connection with sharpness it delivers among all L lenses I've ever used. A weather sealed body with a gasket, a comparatively small and convenient lens hood (takes not so much space in my bag like 17-40 lens hood), popular and affordable 77mm filter thread, image stabilization thatís quite handy, image quite compact for an ultra-wide zoom.
Cons:
Canít make coffee & toasts.

https://yadi.sk/d/JRe0ArOkhL6nr
Here are some raw (*.CR2) test shots with 16-35/4 L IS lens on my 6D at apertures 4.0 and 8.0. These shots are more telltale than words. Simply download files (find and press a downward arrow) and open locally with smth like DPP or ACR.

I must only add that having experience of using 5 L lenses and 2 ZE lenses I was shocked by sharpness of this gem from Canon when I took first shots. Natural color reproduction, high contrast, uniform sharpness across a frame with only slight degradation in outermost corners, not a trace of softness of any visible CA, low and easy correctable distortion and vignetting.

Beware of minor field curvature esp. on the long end. For max acuity nail focus on a side-located object through LV.
Speaking emotionally I think Iím lucky with the lens or Canon finally made an almost perfect and affordable ultra-wide zoom or both.

P.S. check on my flickr page for shots taken with this lens (still pending).

An important notice (for pixel peepers)!
Iíve been shooting with the lens for a week and thatís what I found.
1. IS may and does degrade IQ making sharpness across a frame non-uniform. I believe IS in a ultra-wide lens acts like a tilt-shift unit making unfavorable and uncontrolled shift movements at the moment of capturing a shot. OTOH IS on mode is fine for videographers. With disabled IS the lens still captures sharp images as usual.
2. The lens has got a mild field curvature on focal length between 24 and 35 mm maximizing at 35mm. Hyper focal focusing is not effectively applicable with this lens. Corner objects are sharper if they closer to the camera. Increasing aperture makes close objects more sharper than ones on distance. So keep this in mind and use LV focusing or focus bracketing techniques. It must be mentioned that it is common for wide and even normal lenses.

N.B. I wonít decrease the lens rating because I think that these aspects are not negative yet rather its peculiarities. Simply keep them in mind and produce great pictures with this great lens.


Jun 19, 2015
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add AlexDROP to your Buddy List  
stopper
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 1, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Review Date: Jun 10, 2015 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,350.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: IQ across the frame, cheaper than the 2.8 and easy to take hiking
Cons:
Don't like the petal lens hood

In some some situations there is heavy vignetting when using a flash and auto. Easily corrected in Photoshop though.
I love to take this light lens hiking and take pictures of the 200 foot high trees straight up with the blue sky and some cloud in the background, 16mm angle of view is a must.
I have some great pictures of the Cozumel, Mexico sunsets at 16mm. 24mm from the 24-70mm just didn't give enough of the sky, 16mm really enhanced the picture. Don't expect to get a large sun in the picture, it will be a small dot, if you want a large sun use a 300mm.


Jun 10, 2015
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add stopper to your Buddy List  
Photoguy1956
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 10, 2015
Location: Iceland
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jun 10, 2015 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,400.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Light, excellent corner sharpness and almost equals the super great Nikon 14-24
Cons:
Price of all Canon lenses. I want everything for nothing and Canon wants huge profits.

I could not be happier with this lens.
Comes very close to the highly rated Nikon 14-24 2.8.
This lens also has AF and IS which the Nikon is only manual focus on the Canon bodies...plus you have to have an adapter that will cause some loss of IQ on a Canon body.
I use it for real estate. Inside the home there is no worries for a small room. The customers are selling their home and not their couch so a 16mm wide lens is great.


Jun 10, 2015
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Photoguy1956 to your Buddy List  
jcmedeiros
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jun 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 792
Review Date: May 8, 2015 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $998.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: edge-to-edge sharpness, IQ, IS
Cons:
None

I have owned the 17-40 f/4L and the 16-35 f/2.8L II and this lens completely destroys both of them in overall image quality, especially in the corners. Canon has absolutely nailed it with this lens. Wide open it is excellent and stopped down it becomes incredibly sharp even at 16mm. CA is minuscule and a huge improvement over my previous WA zooms. Anyone who shoots landscape should definitely give this lens a try. With rebates this is a great value lens in the high priced L lineup.

May 8, 2015
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jcmedeiros to your Buddy List  
Fred Meebley
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 26, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 315
Review Date: Dec 19, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Optics, Image Stabilization, Fast accurate autofocus, Solid build, Nice lens cap haha
Cons:
Haven't found any yet.

The optics are great, I love the sharpness and contrast right into the corners if I did my part. The colors are good and fringing is well controlled. The flare is also well controlled and sun stars have great definition and shape. The image stabilization is useful and effective. I also like the vignette, it can help give some images a natural looking pop, but can be eliminated with a mouse click if I don't want it. I keep this lens on my 5d3 90% of the time lately and haven't found any reason to complain yet.

Dec 19, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Fred Meebley to your Buddy List  
dhphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 15, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 10860
Review Date: Dec 1, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp, good contrast, well made, weatherproofed
Cons:
Poor quality control (the first lens I tried was very soft). Not quite the world-beater I was expecting but good nonetheless

As the owner and longtime user of the 17-40L I was intrigued by this lens - would it 'blow away' the 17-40L ?

The answer is yes and no.

Stopped down there is very little difference in IQ, the 16-35mm IS wins very slightly in the corners but in the centre the two lenses are more or less identical in performance. You wouldn't tell the difference in a print made at f11 in my opinion.

At the wider apertures and wide open yes the 16-35 is noticeably better, especially in the corners and the image stabilisation is very good indeed, so if this is important to you then this is the lens to buy.

If you will nearly always be stopped down the difference is really not as great as you'd (or I'd) expect.


Dec 1, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews View gallery Add dhphoto to your Buddy List  
Ekychoi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 23, 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
Review Date: Sep 23, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,280.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Excellent color and sharpness. It has the look of the 24-70 II. No regrets in selling my 17-40mm.
Cons:
It is a bit bigger than the old 17-40mm. I need to reorganize my bag to fit in this lens.

Love this new lens. Wish Canon had built this lens before. Just go out and get it. Very good product. Even my wife noticed the difference in the picture quality.

Sep 23, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Ekychoi to your Buddy List  
Soulphoto2014
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 3, 2014
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
Review Date: Sep 3, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Corner-corner sharpness wide open, first UWA with IS.
Cons:
f4 (f2.8 is always handy)

In past I tested all UWA's, so i'll keep it short.

This is the best (and only) corner-corner sharp Canon.
There aren't much alternatives (forget 16-35's and 17-40's with unsharp corners).

If your budget is limited I recommended only 2 lenses which are equally sharp : Tokina 17 f3.5 AT-X Pro (best option, only Ebay) & Tokina 16-28 f2.8 AT-X Pro.


Sep 3, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Soulphoto2014 to your Buddy List  
davidmarsh
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Oct 26, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 140
Review Date: Aug 29, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Clarity, sharpness, low light capabilities, colour
Cons:
None

Amazing lens, I sold both my Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8 L lens for two Canon EF 16-35mm F4 IS L lenses and have never looked back. I provide a commercial HDR Photographic service to my clients and you need a lens that has very little distortion as any imperfections are then multiplied by say 5 times when you are using 5 images for HDR.
The link below is from a set of images we did for a new Audi garage in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK. Use the 'full screen' mode by clicking on the 2 headed arrow to the bottom left of the gallery...

http://wallgo.wallgodev.co.uk/articles/17/2014-08-14/the-new-audi-centre-in-hdr/


Aug 29, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add davidmarsh to your Buddy List  
Jim Heine
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 9, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 308
Review Date: Aug 27, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: sharp enough across the frame at all focal lengths, minimal flare (even if you try), minimal CA, fairly light weight, bokeh is decent, a total pleasure to hold and use in every way, focuses FAST
Cons:
in an ideal world it would be sharper, has distortion/vignetting at 16mm, IS doesn't work 4 stops when you get the shutter speeds low (I can't shoot much slower than 1/8 second consistently with IS at any focal length).

This is by far Canon's best wide angle zoom lens. They nailed this one. It's the first zoom that's sharp (enough) across the frame at all focal lengths, even wide open.

I use this lens a lot for dancing shots at wedding receptions. The focus speed beats out any lens I've every tried, including my previous low light champion, the 24L II.

I really can't find much fault. It's nearly perfect if you only need f4.


Aug 27, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Jim Heine to your Buddy List  
John Daniel
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 6, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1351
Review Date: Aug 7, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharpness center to corner, image quality, color, Stabilization, great for landscape shooting trip.
Cons:
None so far

I have had the 17-40mm, the 16-35mm, 16-35mm f/2.8 II and then this one. When I saw the MTF charts, I made a leap of faith and sold my 16-35mm f/2.8 II. AND i do not regret it.

The new 16-35mm f/4L IS is sharper in the corner and even when used on the 36 mpixels A7R, it produces sharp images. It has IS which is great when, for example, you are on a trip to Europe, in an old town with narrow streets requiring a very wide lens and you do not want to use a tripod, or in other places where you are not allowed to use a tripod like some churches or museums.

I would say this one is as sharp in the center (or almost as sharp at some focales) as the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. But in the corners, it's the new king.

Matched to the new 24-70mm f/4L IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS, you've got a new light Trilogy for the landscape travellers.


Aug 7, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add John Daniel to your Buddy List  
MurrayMac
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 31, 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jul 31, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,250.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Very well built; extremely sharp; great weight; good focal range; very useful image stabilization; 77mm filter size
Cons:
none

I just came off a two week trip to northern Europe and this lens performed better than anticipated. Even though I brought my 24-105, the new 16-35 f/4L IS never came off my 6D. I traded in my 17-40 and will never regret the extra cost.

- flare was extremely well controlled
- the IS was very beneficial in 'low light' indoor situations
- CA is well controlled
- the lens is sharp in all focal lengths, from corner to corner [35mm was suggested as it weakest point, but I fail to see it]
- there is a noticeable improvement in distortion, over the 17-40 model


Feel free to view my "real world" shots at my Flickr site. All photos with this lens are clearly marked below the photo.....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/the-spirit-within/

I highly suspect this will be my walk around lens from this point forward.


Jul 31, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add MurrayMac to your Buddy List  
datfish
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 1, 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 84
Review Date: Jul 29, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Lightweight, Sharp throughout, Great Range and IS a bonus
Cons:
None so far other than price.

After finally shelling out for a 5D3 in late 2012, my 7D got pushed to "Tele use only"...... almost. I contemplated replacing my EF-S 10-22mm with a 16-35mm but the price of the EF 16-35mm F2.8 L USM (i & ii) and some of the "mediocre"reviews ( relative to price) made me hang back.

Recently I splashed out and sold my EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS USM and the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and funded the 16-35mm F/4 IS USM after reading some of the stellar reviews it was receiving......AND SO GLAD I DID!
It has been fantastic so far!!!!! Not too heavy, great focal range and exceptional corner to corner sharpness throughout the F range for a lens of this type.

Don't get me wrong the EF-S lenses I sold had been FANTASTIC for many years on the 7d, but now??.... I am on another planet with the 16-35 and 24-70 matched to a 5d3.........SERIOUSLY!

Now I have my own Zoom Holy Trinity of sorts, adding the 16-34 F4 to my EF 24-70 F/2.8 USM ii and an 70-200 F2.8 IS USM ii, that I have had for a couple of years.
I have not used the 16-35mm F2.8 USM i or ii so I cannot compare, but from what I have seen so far , this lens is close to the sharpness and overall IQ of the 24-70 F2.8 USM ii in my view.

If anyone is interested , and early days yet, but I have done some testing on drop in ND filters with the 16-35 F/4 on a 5d3. Results tell me that with a Hoya HD CPL thin mount AND with a Cokin Z Pro with only one or two slots fitted to the holder, the 16-35 F4 does NOT suffer from added vignetting at 16mm. Adding the third slot causes significant vignetting.

If you're looking to add the 16-35mm range to you're FF kit you should SERIOUSLY LOOK AT THE F/4 Variant, particularly if , like me, f2.8 is not that important to you in the shorter end of the focal range it covers.


Jul 29, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add datfish to your Buddy List  
grueber34
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 10, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 11
Review Date: Jul 24, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Gorgeous
Cons:
A little large

Wow. If you can swing it, just get this thing and never look back.

Jul 24, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add grueber34 to your Buddy List  
hagejsh
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 23, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jul 19, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,199.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Excellent IQ. I mean at all focal lengths. For this 16-35 range it is the first time Cannon has not let me down. Lighter than the predecessors.
Cons:
None really. It is quite a bit less expensive than the 16-35 F 2.8 11 and a much better performer.

Excellent IQ. I was very very disappointed with the 16-35 F 2.8. I was more than disappointed with the 16-35 F 2.8 11. Both were very soft at almost all distances. After reading some reviews I traded in the latter for this version. I am not disappointed. It may not have the waterproofing of the previous issues, but they were not worth carrying in my bag. I am using it on a 5D Mk !!!. Heaven! With the 5d Mk 3 the ISO adjustment more than makes up for this being an F4. I do not shoot high speed sports events.
However--if I did--I would not use either of the predecessors due to lack of IQ. I now feel quite complete with this lens, the 24-70 F 2.8 Mk 2 and the 70-200 F 2.8 Mk 2. I feel these lenses to be on par. Good job Cannon.


Jul 19, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add hagejsh to your Buddy List  
Peter Kotsa
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 1, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 268
Review Date: Jul 18, 2014 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: 77mm filter, 9 blade aperture, IS
Cons:
none so far

Great results at all focal lengths. Shooting f4 and getting sharp corners is a luxury for a super wide zoom in Canon and requires some getting used to. A very comparable lens to the 17mm TSE. The 16-35mmf4L IS has slightly better coatings than the TSE.
Excellent quality and build. Some might find it a little bit pricey, but I think it is in a completely different league than the 17-40, so cannot compare the two. Like I said, its closer to the 17 TSE in image quality.


Jul 18, 2014
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Peter Kotsa to your Buddy List  

†††



Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
20 24070 Jun 19, 2015
Recommended By Average Price
100% of reviewers $1,190.46
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.90
9.20
10.0
Screen_Shot_2014-07-21_at_8_05_15_PM_copy


Page:  1 · 2  next