16-35/4 L IS: are you still unsure? Check on test shots...

Hi there,
I would like to share a few test shots and experience with my newly acquired and beloved 16-35/4 lens.

In short:
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 that’s quite handy, image quite compact for an ultra-wide zoom.
Cons: Can’t make coffee & toasts.

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 I’m 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).

+1 agree. Nice flickr images, too! Canon has been kicking a$$ with their zooms in recent years. I was stunned when I compared the results of my 16-35 f/4L IS against my 24-70 f/2.8 II and the results were nearly identical. Amazing lens at a relatively affordable price. LensRentals did a tear down on this lens and the build quality is considerably better than the f/2.8 lenses.

And, in all honesty, I have never once missed going from a f/2.8 version to the f/4. I've shot a bunch of assignments under horrible light and the 16-35 f/4L IS has nailed it every time.

Hot Dog!

Great to hear that about the 16-35 f/4 L IS.

In January of 2014, I needed buy a Wide Angle zoom for a 5D Mark III. At that time only the 17-40 f/4 and the 16-35 f/2.8 L were my options. So I grabbed the 17-40. From what we have been hearing and your experience is that the f/4 L IS is all that.

Time to start flipping all the pillows over on the couches and see what loose change I can find........

I completely agree. The biggest surprise for me was the usefulness of the IS, which I just considered cake icing at the time of purchase. For many outings, I can leave my tripod at home-- landscape wide angle photography of course commonly consists of fairly static subject matter, and the best opportunities are often at dawn and dusk. IS helps a lot more than I though it would.

The IS works so well for me that I have gotten sharp photos with partial motion blur (like moving water) handheld. It almost feels like cheating!

It looks like they've dropped the price, too! I got mine ~2 months ago from B&H... the same $100 rebate applies as when I purchased it, but the base price is $100 cheaper!

-Sean

KiwiTux wrote:

I completely agree. The biggest surprise for me was the usefulness of the IS, which I just considered cake icing at the time of purchase. For many outings, I can leave my tripod at home-- landscape wide angle photography of course commonly consists of fairly static subject matter, and the best opportunities are often at dawn and dusk. IS helps a lot more than I though it would.

The IS works so well for me that I have gotten sharp photos with partial motion blur (like moving water) handheld. It almost feels like cheating!

It looks like they've dropped the price, too! I got mine ~2 months ago from B&H... the same $100 rebate applies as when I purchased it, but the base price is $100 cheaper!

-Sean

Can't wait to get my hands on mine. It will be dispatched today

the f2.8 is not sharp wide open.  I always stooped down to f3.2 or f3.5

Clicked on your link and wow! Great shots!

Also some beautiful ones with your 24-105... dang, I was all set to sell mine! Think I need to hold onto it and save for the 16-35!

An important notice (for pixel peepers)!
I’ve been shooting with the lens for a week and that’s 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 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 focusing or focus bracketing techniques. It must be mentioned that it is common for wide and even normal lenses.

N.B. I won’t 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.

I like the Loch Actriochtan Shot.

MAny others look to HDR overprocessed / too vibrant to my taste. Thanks for sharing, though.

Thanks for this, been thinking about purchasing one, now pretty much sold on the idea.

Thanks for all of your detailed information and opinion.  This helped me tremendously in deciding whether to purchase this lens.

AlexDROP1984 wrote:

An important notice (for pixel peepers)!
I’ve been shooting with the lens for a week and that’s 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 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 focusing or focus bracketing techniques. It must be mentioned that it is common for wide and even normal lenses.

N.B. I won’t 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.

Is the is good enough to shoot real estate photography indoors in low lighting without a tripod? Or would you still want a tripod in that situation.

ed rader wrote:

the f2.8 is not sharp wide open. I always stooped down to f3.2 or f3.5

Did you stoop to conquer?

hotdog321 wrote:

+1 agree. Nice flickr images, too! Canon has been kicking a$$ with their zooms in recent years. I was stunned when I compared the results of my 16-35 f/4L IS against my 24-70 f/2.8 II and the results were nearly identical.ime.

Yeah, this was my surprise as well. I really dont use this lens much, im not really a WA person, but when i do the images always bring a smile to my face and its actually one  my fav lenses. I'd class the 24-70 f/4 in this league as well, to the point where i hardly every use my 24-70 f/2.8 mkii.

bryanwilliamssc wrote:

Thanks for all of your detailed information and opinion. This helped me tremendously in deciding whether to purchase this lens.

Glad it helped. So, what is your final decision?

jjz2 wrote:

Is the is good enough to shoot real estate photography indoors in low lighting without a tripod? Or would you still want a tripod in that situation.

Hi there,
I prefer using a tripod in every situation with stationary objects. But if it is not desired then I think this lens is the most capable option to shoot indoors with dim light. Using LV and 2 sec. delay (with minimal vibration cuz of 1st curtan) helps to make crisp images even at 1/5 sec and 16mm FL.