A very good lens for purposes I hadn't considered....

[Crispyinasia]

I bought this lens about a month ago prior to my trip to Washington & Mexico with the idea of having it as a landscape lens for the trip. I currently have it mated to a Canon 7D. I thought it was okay, not flash, but it was up to the task and it filled a range in my camera bag that I had been procrastinating over for some time. I had vacillated over whether to go the whole hog and get the 11-24 which in Australia was a tad under $4k, was beautiful but I just couldn't justify it. Anyway, I decided to use the 16-35 instead of the 70-200 F2.8 II, at my daughters pony club meet yesterday, and with a bright sunny day, using ISO 100 and a moderate shutter speed, I was absolutely bowled over by the results. It was super sharp, I thought better to my 70-200 which I adore, and this after having to crop the pictures savagely because of the distance to subject issue. So next pony club meet, I will endeavor to get into the ring rather than on the outer to sort the distance issue. But the results were very impressive from around the field and this may become my lens for Pony Club going forward.

 

[ZeroSkillet]

Amazing shot bro. You can see the power of the horse jeez.

 

[Rexgig0]

I like your image! I am sure Canon wanted the PJ market, as well as enthusuasts who shoot under PJ-like conditions, to take this new lens seriously, and designed it accordingly. (Of course, Canon still sells the EF 16-35/2.8L II, but Roger Cicala's tear-down proved the 16-35/4L IS is built to pro standards.) Canon has really upped their L lens line-up the past few years.

16mm to 35mm is very useful on 1.6x-crop cameras. I recently opted for the 16-35/2.8L II, myself, as the 7D Mark II can AF in light as low as EV -3 with f/2.8 lenses, but it was a very difficult decision, as the 16-35/4L IS, like yours, is clearly an excellent, improved product.

 

[Crispyinasia]

Thanks Rexgig0, I thought long and hard about buying the version that you have F2.8, but the various blogs and comparison shots showed that the F4 version was a sharper beast than the F2.8. Now sharpness wasn't the only requirement, but the IS was as I have found in doing shots close to the ground my hands shake a bit, so this added element got it across the line for me. Add to that the poor ISO performance of the 7D, it was a simple decision. I tried out the 11-24mm and loved it and my wife would have let me buy it, but I will save that favour for when the 5D Mk IV comes out, later this year I hope.

 

[stratobill]

Thanks Rexgig0, I thought long and hard about buying the version that you have F2.8, but the various blogs and comparison shots showed that the F4 version was a sharper beast than the F2.8. Now sharpness wasn't the only requirement, but the IS was as I have found in doing shots close to the ground my hands shake a bit, so this added element got it across the line for me. Add to that the poor ISO performance of the 7D, it was a simple decision. I tried out the 11-24mm and loved it and my wife would have let me buy it, but I will save that favour for when the 5D Mk IV comes out, later this year I hope.

Great looking shot, you can see how great the color and contrast are on that lens.

It will really come to life for you on full frame!