Photojournalist's upgrade.

The 16-35mm focal lengths are some of the most useful zoom ranges available, ideal for architecture, landscapes, street photography, photojournalism, artistic effects, even environmental portraits when used properly. I've been a photojournalist for over 30 years and replaced my old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1 with the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS. I bought this new f/4 version because, frankly, my old 16-35 isn't very sharp (v. 2 isn't much better), especially at the corners.

I shot some comparison tests at f/4 at 16mm, 24mm and 35mm. The new 16-35 f/4 blows the old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1 out of the water and, here's the kicker: sharpness, resolution, color fringing, resistance to flare closely matches my fabulously expensive 24-70 f/2.8L II. Even out of focus highlights appear crisper and better defined.

The IS on the new 16-35 f/4 provides exceptional stability for hand-holding under low light conditions. The relatively compact lens hood is less cumbersome than the old design and includes a pinch-style lens cap. Although few will miss it, the new design does not incorporate a gel filter holder on the rear like the old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1.

I'm a photojournalist and prefer a f/2.8 lens to match my other lenses, but the optics on this new lens are so darn good that I've slapped that bad boy on one of my 5D III bodies and leave it there. Canon deserves kudos for producing a truly sharp extreme wide angle zoom at a reasonable price.

Agree. This lens is the first zoom that I have used confidently for landscapes, it is as good as primes.

This is high on my list for 2015 to upgrade my 17-40L.  I've seen nothing but universal praise for this lens.  Frankly, I'm glad Canon made it f/4 because I'm sure they would have charged double had it been f2.8.  While all of Canon's newer L zooms are excellent, this is one of the few you could call a "bargain".

Completely agree. I'd almost go as far as saying this lens is a bargain. I've gone from being a little impressed to completely head-over-heels crazy in love. From everything I've been able to discern, this lens is every bit as sharp, with color, contrast, CA, you name it - this is the sibling to the 24-70, not some distant cousin. I got this to replace the 17-40, which I like quite a bit actually. I only really expected to find it sharper in the corners - and of course the added advantage of IS.

My first side-by-side tests against the 17-40 showed it was quite a bit better than that. While any of my side-by-sides with the 24-70 showed it to be nearly equal (and in some cases - superior). I was almost shocked to see that Reikan FoCal backed this up with numbers. The only L lens I have that's sharper is my 100L macro.

rebel99 wrote:

hey, craig, you are talking me into getting one of these lenses, even though i have a bunch of very high IQ lenses at this FL

cheerz.

. . .  then my job here is done.  My Canon stock is skyrocketing!

....and...and...if you live in SEAsia, you can pick one up new with Canon warranty or $925.

Don't know. I got mine for $983 in Singapore in July. I should have waited. With the depreciating rupiah/apreciating dollar I can get it for $925 in Indonesia today.

victorian squid wrote:

Completely agree. I'd almost go as far as saying this lens is a bargain. I've gone from being a little impressed to completely head-over-heels crazy in love. From everything I've been able to discern, this lens is every bit as sharp, with color, contrast, CA, you name it - this is the sibling to the 24-70, not some distant cousin. I got this to replace the 17-40, which I like quite a bit actually. I only really expected to find it sharper in the corners - and of course the added advantage of IS.

My first side-by-side tests against the 17-40 showed it was quite a bit better than that. While any of my side-by-sides with the 24-70 showed it to be nearly equal (and in some cases - superior). I was almost shocked to see that Reikan FoCal backed this up with numbers. The only L lens I have that's sharper is my 100L macro.

That's remarkable! I performed down and dirty "real world" tests comparing my 16-35 f/4L IS to the 24-70 f/2.8L II at f/4 at 24mm and 35mm. It seemed that the two were equally fine lenses, but frankly I had a hard time believing my own results. This new wide angle is quite a bargain!

Thanks guys for confirming that there is no need for me to buy the 24-70 2.8. I can get the same great quality from this lens, and my 24-70 f/4, while not being quite as good, is much more practical than the 2.8 for its lighter weight and IS.

rebel99 wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

....and...and...if you live in SEAsia, you can pick one up new with Canon warranty or $925.

hey, Abu, why such a difference in price of the same lens between 2 market?

cheerz.

Perhaps the Canon USA price is higher, to cover all of the returns, by US buyers who cannot shoot up to the lens' potential, and return them, or want to buy several, and keep the "sharpest" one, returning the others, or just want to use the lens for a vacation, and then return it?

I already knew US buyers were overly spoiled, but I recently read a book on the subject of advice for US expatriates wanting to live in Asia, and the book cautioned that returns in Asia are seen in a quite different light.

Back on the subject, this lens is now perched at the top of my to-buy list, now that I have finally acquired my third 600EX-RT and 7D Mark II, though when I can fund the lens is still to be determined. I have worked some seasonal over-time, and will see how much of that makes it past the income tax with-holding.