'The zoom/rear barrel assembly comes off next. The mount on this lens is held on by 7 large screws. The previous record we’ve seen is 6. I love some over-engineering; it’s always a good thing.'
What is a "soft rubber water weal"? Not sure I want one of those near my camera!
Impressive for a zoom - but why would I need a 16-35mm zoom when I have a Zeiss 35mm F2 and a Sigma 15mm F2.8 FishEye and a Samyang 14mm F2.8 that all beat the canon on border and edge sharpness @ all apertures. (and taken together still cost less). The moustache distortion? Ahhh "a little extra work" finding a lens profile for LR - and no for pixel peepers the moustache is not completely removed - but edge sharpness is more important to me on any wide than a slight remaining distortion.Ahh yes - no autofocus - so I will misss a shot that the pro needs to make a living - or while I am fiddling with changing lenses. Facts of life: I am getting older and my Minolta XE-1 had the fastest changing bayonet out there.
As "strange as it may seem" some people prefer zoom lenses in certain photographic situations.
You are right, I have a Canon friend who is considering this lens now as we speak. To me there is some karma in exchangiing the "pain" of changing primes to the "gain" of the end result as I perceive it. Entirely subjective admittedly :-)
I have the Samyang 14/2.8, Canon FDn 17/4, Canon FD 20/2.8, 24 TSE II and the Sigma 35/1.4 Art, but the 16-35/4 holds its own against all these primes very well - even in the corners. (I have done some careful testing - I'm a pixel peeper too.) It is an excellent lens, not sacrificing much quality to the primes for a boatload of versatility.
To create a false dichotomy like this is just silly.
Maybe they just didn't build it for you Hasa. (If only they had known ahead of time... ;-)
I peep at a much higher resolution than any of the current Canon dslr bodies, so no you are quite right: Canon did not build it for me because the more of the landscape I squeeze into the frame using an ultra wide the more pixels I would like to have. I would love to see your comparison whenever Canon produces a suitable body. Until then you should leave it to Nikonians to do the pixel peeping. So here we go again. "It is not about pixels" - oh just wait until Canon produces a 50 (?) Mpix body - then the Canonians will point out to Nikonians that now it IS about more pixels :-) And how do you compare the 16-35 @ F 1.4 to the Sigma 35 F1.4? There is some point to what Ken Rockwell says: @ F11 they are all the same - no big news here.
Would my A7r suffice as a test platform?
Same Sony sensor? Yes, that would do. I just prefer primes 14, 15 (sigma), 20 (nikon) and 35 (zeiss). Samyang vs. the 15mm Zeiss vs. Nikon 14-24: (all are F2.8 lenses and thus comparable). As you can see (on the NEX-7) at even higher pixel densities than the A7R/D8xx, the Samyang is not half bad in the center and beats everything else at the Samyang pricepoint. The Nikon is maybe the edge king but the Zeiss trumps at F2.8. To me it is interesting if somebody makes an affordable lens with acceptable compromises, correctable in post. Comparing with my zeiss 35mm F2 is moot. I like to use it @ F2 sometimes. The world is waiting for some new comparison test shots now. DxO say "in August" but that is on a 24 Mpix body. http://3d-kraft.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D127:uwa-comparison%26catid%3D40:camerasandlenses%26Itemid%3D2comparison%26catid%3D40:camerasandlenses%26Itemid%3D2
I don't know Hasa why would you? I only know why I would.
Roger and his crew at Lens Rentals' do a great job. I wish one day they would enlighten the mystery behind the failure of some of the first M.Zuiko 12-40/2.8s Olympus never has confessed to.
Isn't Roger "Len's Rentals" so why is he saying management tell him this and that?
Always enjoy reading his lens test and disassembly.
Roger is the man.He is saying the way he sees it.Quite unusual for the guy who makes his living by renting product of others. What he said is that he like the lens. There are other choices of this FL he can provide. You just have to make up your mind in what you want.I trust his word more than many of the review sites.
He sold all or part of the biz or turned over management to someone else....You'd have to go look through old posts on the site, but a year or two back he said that he was taking a different role at the company.
I had a great time starting Lensrentals, but I haven't been Lensrentals in a long while. There are 70+ people working there now. My skills don't include managing a big company.
Several years ago I sold a significant portion of the company to the guys who were actually running it: juggling depreciation, following human resources guidelines, negotiating logistics, and all that business stuff that I don't really know how to do, and never want to learn.
I still run the quality assurance and repair departments, but don't do anything with day-to-day operations - management runs that and I stay out of their way except at monthly meetings.
You're even smarter than I thought !
A man after my own heart. Do the work that you love and enjoy.
thanks, i thought i've read this article somewhere, didn't know that it was lensrentals, because i've forgotten it. :)
I've been quite impressed with the vast improvement in corner sharpness of the new 16-35 f/4L IS, but this lens tear-down takes it to a new level. Canon really stepped up with this new lens design.
My old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1 has gone into a drawer as a backup lens. The new f/4 version is head-and-shoulders better. Appreciate that my expensive 77mm CP and UV filter (for weather sealing) fits on this new design and that the lens hood is a bit more compact.
Big kudos to Canon for a superior upgrade at a reasonable price.
For the money, it's great. And typical of Canon, I pre-ordered and received the lens 2 weeks before the announced release date.
Glad to see Canon addressing lens alignment issues. Really annoying to have an expensive lens which can't be adjusted easily and is soft in part of the frame.
Looks like a lot of electronic parts to break down.
Electronic parts don't break down, mechanical ones do. The only electric parts that fail are usually part mechanical (motors) or cheap capacitors.
well, if you'd compare let's say a 35 or 50mm prime lens couple, one is made of metal and mf only, the other a current production one - which are being used everyday - i bet the older one would last ages longer...capacitors are electronical parts, and motors, too...and they'd brake after years....someday, somehow...anyway.
lol .. yeah because the cameras we put them on now have no electronics at all.. derp.
i mean really - comparing this to any old MF lens is kind of a chuckle - because back in the MF days, there was no such thing has high performing UWA's under 21mm with around the OM 15mm being about the only notable exception. even the C/Y 15mm wasnt that great
you can always use a film body, and forget the electronics - not lol! it's about the lenses here - not DSLR bodies, and for sure the old manual focus lenses would last longer. About the Body - in today's fast times, you'll upgrade a body either way after some years, but you'd keep a good lens a lifetime, so who cares about a body? that's LOL!
I agree with marc petzold. You'll go through many bodies but lens can last a lifetime. That's why I don't know about all these electronics put in lens these days.
I'm sorry I love my FD lenses, but they show their signs of age, with CA, loCA and lack of general crispness.
oh right you can use film .. if that's the case why are you even on this thread anyways - it pertains nothing to do you. since you're stuck in the dark ages of even lens design because something may break. Especially with your own self professed dislike to canon. just stirring up things? I'm curious if your posted on any other lens threads pertaining to quality of materials.. gasps. none. go figure!
Viking79 －“Electronic parts don't break down” Oh really？Guess you've never heard of TVs or radios broke down in your life heh? hahaha~
These new lenses won't last a lifetime even in comparison to AF lenses made 10-15 years ago. The RoHS compliant lead-free solder they now use puts a more finite life on even the most expensive lenses. The lead-free solder grows tin whiskers that short out circuitry and the solder joints also weaken and lose connection. The average amount of time before the tin whiskers cause a problem is about 10 years. It's not an automatic death sentence, but the probability if your lens failing is much more prevalent. Lenses aren't really the lifetime purchase that they used to be. Unless of course you buy a non-CPU MF lens such as a Leica.
Exactly that's the Point..sad...but true....But if i had written that, others would be more upset.On Nikon Lenses, you've got a 10 inside two arrows logo...it can last 10-15 years, or perhaps more...the wisker growthis contigent on many physical facts like temperature and manyother things. for instance:
Also interesting: http://nepp.nasa.gov/whisker/reference/tech_papers/2011-NASA-GSFC-whisker-failure-app-sensor.pdfAnyone, remember the Toyota "Gate" with 1000's of Factory recalls? that was caused by a failing pedal sensor - which growed whiskers.
Well, is it such a big deal? If the AF breaks, you get an MF lens (at least with the non-by-wire lenses like this one). The only thing that would be a problem is the electronically controlled aperture.In that respect, Nikkors are better as their aperture can be mechanically controlled by the body. I wish manufacturers would return to making lenses with mechanical aperture control (good lenses are big enough to house one additional ring anyways).
@ marc petzold: That 10 symbol is for China only. It doesn't mean that it's a 10 year life span. It means that for 10 years the lens is certified RoHS compliant and that no toxic chemicals will be discharged for at least 10 years.
@johnsmith404: Yeah it's a big deal. I paid for a AF lens. If I wanted a MF lens I'd buy one. Focusing screens on today's DSLR cameras are abysmal for manually focusing. I use my 16-35 primarily for nighttime event shooting and trying to accurately manual focus in those conditions is pointless. I need the AF to lock on quickly so people aren't standing around waiting for me to be sure the focus is good.
thanks for info. About todays lenses - the worst example: try manual focusing with a typical 18-55/3.5-5.6 Kitlens (insert your fave brand here) - it's a mess, the focus ring is way small, and will at least turn a quarter circle...not much more.
For example, back into the old days when all i had in terms of DSLR was a D40 Nikon with 18-55 ED II Kitlens - i used to manual focus, because when i was shooting into snow landscapes in my fave winter season, or into the mist, the D40 never locked focus, instead does AF hunting, zooming in & out without getting proper focus, the same happened with my 35/1.8 AF-S DX onto that body, but the same goes for the D60, as it implies the same AF System - that situation changed with my D90, then.
This lens has replaced my 17-40. IS + ultra sharp & contrasty. 77mm filter = I love it on the 6D.
Wait a second, I forgot my 2 EF-M lenses (EF 22 and EF 18-55), which deliver a very good af performance. To be honest though, they take their time. But they get their job done! ;-)
Canon - doing what it does best. Being Number One! Woot! Woot!
here comes the fanboy... :D
@ Boky: you say, that you "sold everything and never looked back at canon gear for achieving consistent focus results". I do own 2 canon (e.g. the 24-105) and 2 sigma lenses (actually I sold one Sigma lens some time ago because I made the swith to FF) for some years now. While I have always been pleased with the focus accuracy of my sigma lenses, I think my canon lenses truly shine in this aspect. So I can nott agree on what you are saying. Just my opinion.
Even with a red band, half plastic...
that's why i love old mf lenses - metal lens barrel, and no build-in af motor, ultrasonic or whatever, nothing really that could get broken within decades, if you handle your lenses carefully, they'd last a lifetime...and perhaps your grandchildren would love to use them. :)
besides that, i've read some time ago, the zoom lens class 70-200mm is the one which get broken seriously too often within a couple years, i can't verify this, because i don't own a zoom lens of that range and/or type.
I think Roger (on lensrental) have an article about that. However, he stated that the 70-200s were lenses that needed statistically more repairs in the rental system. And this is quite expected as they are very complex designs packed with a lot of tech. However the "rental" type of use is very intense and often abusive, and way above the level of use even compared with someone who use his lens 8 hours a day 5days a week.Almost all photographers who use these lenses intense say they are very robust, and rarely fail.
I have no problem with the plastic. Seems well constructed
I love my indestructible old Takumars
What's wrong with engineering plastics?
I'm not sure why plastic has such a bad rap. There are applications where plastic is better than metal, and lens construction may be one. I would expect the requirements for a lens materials to be light, insulating, low cost and resistant to oxidation and weather. Plastic fits quite well. The one property where plastics are inferior is thermal expansion, which shouldn't really be an issue in the relatively small temperature ranges seen by most users. Granted, metal has a superior tactile feel, but objectively, plastics are just fine.
also referring to rogers articles on lensrental, there is one about metal mounts. It's a very interesting reading if you take the time to search for it.Anyway, the take idea is that plastic mounts are just as good, and in some situations are better: for example if you drop a heavy lens+camera, if the mount is plastic, it just breaks, and easy to fix. If it is metal, it will bend and make a lot of damage to the lens internal and camera mount.
@jndnothing really, apart from the haptics, and the "feel" of the lens...its the same with HiFi, i'd like to touch aluminium/metal knobs more then just cheap plastic ones. And what's bad on today's DSLR/DSLM cameras: aperture control onto the body! that was for decades onto the lens - like it much more that way, instead of rotating a plastic dial on some camera body...
ironically i've seen metal lenses get bent out of shape from a light drop and zoom / focus being compromised - i doubt that would happen nearly as easily with engineered plastics.
metal bad plastic good! NO! Plastic bad metal good! urgh!
"Engineering plastic." All polycarbonate, in one form or another. I recently used one of those inexpensive Korean 85mm f/1.4 lenses. Great optics. But let down by a plastic retaining ring that (like all plastic) changes its size hugely with temperature, making precision fit needed for good lenses all but impossible. Just because they dump some ground up fiberglass into it doesn't make it much better.
RichRMA, did you try any of the new Sigmas with their "thermally stable composite"? It's not all that bad nowadays.
Wow - it seems well engineered indeed, particularly in comparison with some older lenses.Seems there is still some honour at Canon's.
7 or 8 years ago I pulled apart the 24-105 L F4 because I could not obtain consistently accurate focus. The PCB (almost identical to photo #2) had a large number of very high inductance chokes placed everywhere across the whole PCB. The only reason why such chokes had to be used was to combat a large amount of noise generated mainly by the lens electronics, but also to filter the noise coming from the camera power supply, i.e. the voltage rails used to power-up the lens. I was shocked to see what canon had to do to keep the noise under control. I also could not believe at the amount of placement tolerance the AF (auto-focus) sensor PCB, located at the bottom of the camera body; I was able to move the little AF PCB freely with my fingers in both directions more than 0.5mm. Needless to say, I sold everything and never looked back at canon gear for achieving consistent focus results. The canon gear I owned was not cheap - around AU$4,500.
LOL omg.. a pcb could shift..
check out the Sony A58 - there is a industry first - a plastic mount bajonet, which for sure doesn't last as long as the usual metal bajonet type, and that had been made because to reduce costs, and also it's a beginners DSLR, eeeh...SLT camera, starter's won't have a) many lenses b) wouldn't change lenses that much...and c) almost all the time using the kitlens, so Sony went that way...but in that term, plastic just sucks.
I love quality metal as much as the next guy, but I'll take high quality plastics for durability. Metal may satisfy the basic human attraction for "shiny objects" , but truth is good plastics neither dent or deform on impact. I've dropped "quality metal" before and was rewarded with a dent. Plastic bounces and keeps on ticking.
Plastic cracks though. Another benefit however must be expansion and contraction coefficients. I have no idea how these are mitigated in an all-metal mechanical lens. One just has to assume the tolerance is good enough for a certain range of temperatures, so that the lenses aren't damaged.
@OMitchAG - It sounds like you are saying plastic has better thermal expansion properties than metal, which is incorrect. Metal expands far less when heated than plastics do. Just Google "thermal expansion coefficient" . The best plastics have a coefficient of around 40, with the range being 40-120 (higher numbers are bad), while metals typically range between 1.5 (Invar -- the least expansive metal known) to around 35 at the worst. There are some special application plastics that may be better, but they are cost prohibitive for general photography.
Nowadays, the quality of plastics is very good, but i like more the haptics, the "feel" of a alu diecast or mag-alloy body, it feels more premium than any kind of (good) plastics - but there's nothing wrong with good engineered plastics.