Canon 16-35mm for Sony A7II

[SimonOL]

First off, I don't really 'do' AF lenses (I have a few native lenses but they are rarely used and will most likely be sold shortly) but having tried a few legacy ultra wides none of them seem to quite hit the mark in terms of consistent IQ across the frame so I think it's time to consider something more up-to-date.

Reading around the issue a little, the Canon 16-35mm f/4 L II seems to get good reviews but I'm not sure which adapter I should be looking at to maximise functionality on a Sony A7II? This would be my first foray into AF adapters and it's unlikely it would be used with any other lens in the foreseeable future, so the lower the purchase price the better with as few functional compromises as possible!

I'm considering a zoom rather than a prime just to make the package more versatile - so it's possible to use as a general purpose lens rather than just a one trick pony - although I'm not really happy with the bulk of the Canon lens (one reason I've really ruled out the f/2.8 version). Is there anything smaller I could consider with similar focal range and IQ? I'm not completely against using an UW prime but it would need to provide tangible benefits in terms of IQ, size and purchase cost to seem worthwhile to me.

Maybe the native Sony 16-35mm would be a better option? I'm not so keen on going down this road in case I change bodies in the future; the Sony is unlikely to ever be adaptable to anything from another manufacturer. Whilst I enjoy using Sony bodies, QC concerns also don't endear me to Sony lenses in general.

Any thoughts welcomed. Maybe my logic is fundamentally flawed - this is unknown territory for me so that's entirely possible

 

[seachicken2000]

Hi,

You might try posting this on the FF E-mount forum.

I don't have the lens, so I can't comment much, but I will say this: there are some pretty bad-looking images from that lens on the A7x cameras, showing issues that do not occur on Canon bodies. Here's one, there are others. The consensus on the FF E-mount forum seems to be that it behaves well in general, but that some adapters are too short.

So I would personally research this before committing.

I use the Commlite adapter for other lenses. It's cheap, well-made but has issues, the worst of which is flare. I've flocked the inside of the adapter, and it has improved massively. The latest Metabones seems to be the highest quality adapter, and would probably be the safest bet (although again I'd check first that it's OK with this lens). It's pretty expensive however.

 

[SimonOL]

Hi,

You might try posting this on the FF E-mount forum.

I don't have the lens, so I can't comment much, but I will say this: there are some pretty bad-looking images from that lens on the A7x cameras, showing issues that do not occur on Canon bodies. Here's one, there are others. The consensus on the FF E-mount forum seems to be that it behaves well in general, but that some adapters are too short.

Hmmm - that's unfortunate :-(

I suspected before I wrote the original post that it possibly wouldn't make sense to consider adapting just one Canon AF lens (as the cost of the adapter obviously couldn't be spread across various lenses) and if the 16-35mm requires the purchase of one of the more expensive adapters to perform well, it makes even less sense!

The native Sony lens starts to look more appealing - it seems generally well-regarded. I don't really want to post on the Sony forum about my QC concerns as that's been discussed so many times already and I can already imagine the responses!

I'm in no hurry so I'll just research ad infinitum

Thank you for your informative reply!

So I would personally research this before committing.

I use the Commlite adapter for other lenses. It's cheap, well-made but has issues, the worst of which is flare. I've flocked the inside of the adapter, and it has improved massively. The latest Metabones seems to be the highest quality adapter, and would probably be the safest bet (although again I'd check first that it's OK with this lens). It's pretty expensive however.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I have that lens' second cousin the 17-35mm f2.8. In fact it was my very first outstandng lens purchase way back about 2001. Canon re-marketed it as the 16-35mm f2.8 which was said to be an improvement if you can indeed improve on perfection.

It has been a lens where I find it hard to take a bad image. Presently roosting on my Olympus E-M1 attached via a Metabones BT-2 plain electronic adapter it is working as it it were oem equipment. Very happy.

The lens was a curse in many ways as it led me into buying more and more Canon EF lenses and the upshot was that I was trapped in Canon's clutches to continue to but their quite nice but increasingly old fashioned dslr bodies.

In the end I don't notice the lens size, what works works and the lens is robust and has not given me a moment of issues whether from lack of reliable captures or in build quality.

Oh - the hood is a pain to get on and off as it is very tight and grabby. The retailer helpfully produced some graphite dust but it never worked. Nor has it ever improved - maybe I just have a bad copy?

If that was my only problem then it is of pinprick consequence.

I don't know the f4.0, but I can thoroughly recommend the f2.8.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Hi,

You might try posting this on the FF E-mount forum.

I don't have the lens, so I can't comment much, but I will say this: there are some pretty bad-looking images from that lens on the A7x cameras, showing issues that do not occur on Canon bodies. Here's one, there are others. The consensus on the FF E-mount forum seems to be that it behaves well in general, but that some adapters are too short.

Hmmm - that's unfortunate :-(

I suspected before I wrote the original post that it possibly wouldn't make sense to consider adapting just one Canon AF lens (as the cost of the adapter obviously couldn't be spread across various lenses) and if the 16-35mm requires the purchase of one of the more expensive adapters to perform well, it makes even less sense!

Simon

The trouble with using EF lenses is just as you have noted - the cost of a good adapter needs to be spread over a number of lenses. Fortunately I had about 14 of my 16 quality EF lenses before about nine years ago in a rash of spending the kid's inheritence. I suppose I could have bought a BMW or a Mercedes and a compact camera but settled for a Volkswagen and some great lenses. The lenses are still good, the car still works fine, and even a Merc would look worn and dated by now. So a couple of Metabones adapters bring my lens fleet over to another camera mount system and so far the M4/3 system is working very well.

However you touched on a good point. When (and "when" is the right word) Canon get around to making their pro-level mirrorless for EF my Canon lenses will seamlessly slip back to their original vocation, should I so choose, and I will have the choice of Sony, M4/3 or Canon bodies. Neither M4/3 nor Sony lenses are going anywhere other than their oem bodies. Here we have legacy MF lens choice with good AF capability thrown in.

There is no doubt that the premium Canon lenses are quite premium in their performance. The decision was easy on my part. I had been waiting for the electronic adapter opportunity to be freed from Canon's tied to dslr body regimen for years.

Again, I don't know the f4.0 version but the f2.8 is an exceptional lens. I don't remember any issues with it on my A7R MkI and it works perfectly to oem levels on my Olympus E-M1.

It is going to get to the state where I have to refresh my memory by breaking out my A7R which has been gathering dust since my delight with how well M4/3 mount camera bodies handle Canon EF lenses.

Just think of it - here I have a FF sensor king of the MkI Sony A7 body heap and I neglect it because M4/3 works so much better .... must have rocks in my head ....

The MkI series is still marred because it does not handle EF lenses across the board to any degree of perfection. The MkII is said to be much better and compared to how well M4/3 bodies work. But recent comments on another post are making me wonder if M4/3 AF response is actually even better than that of the A7 MkII series. Of course this is going nowhere as I am refusing to upgrade to a single-style MkII body when I have a perfectly good MkI version and I can buy several styles of M4/3 bodies for a good deal less than one A7 MkII body.

The native Sony lens starts to look more appealing - it seems generally well-regarded. I don't really want to post on the Sony forum about my QC concerns as that's been discussed so many times already and I can already imagine the responses!

I'm in no hurry so I'll just research ad infinitum

Thank you for your informative reply!

So I would personally research this before committing.

I use the Commlite adapter for other lenses. It's cheap, well-made but has issues, the worst of which is flare. I've flocked the inside of the adapter, and it has improved massively. The latest Metabones seems to be the highest quality adapter, and would probably be the safest bet (although again I'd check first that it's OK with this lens). It's pretty expensive however.

 

[SimonOL]

I have that lens' second cousin the 17-35mm f2.8. In fact it was my very first outstandng lens purchase way back about 2001. Canon re-marketed it as the 16-35mm f2.8 which was said to be an improvement if you can indeed improve on perfection.

It has been a lens where I find it hard to take a bad image. Presently roosting on my Olympus E-M1 attached via a Metabones BT-2 plain electronic adapter it is working as it it were oem equipment. Very happy.

The lens was a curse in many ways as it led me into buying more and more Canon EF lenses and the upshot was that I was trapped in Canon's clutches to continue to but their quite nice but increasingly old fashioned dslr bodies.

In the end I don't notice the lens size, what works works and the lens is robust and has not given me a moment of issues whether from lack of reliable captures or in build quality.

Oh - the hood is a pain to get on and off as it is very tight and grabby. The retailer helpfully produced some graphite dust but it never worked. Nor has it ever improved - maybe I just have a bad copy?

If that was my only problem then it is of pinprick consequence.

I don't know the f4.0, but I can thoroughly recommend the f2.8.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I have that lens' second cousin the 17-35mm f2.8. In fact it was my very first outstandng lens purchase way back about 2001. Canon re-marketed it as the 16-35mm f2.8 which was said to be an improvement if you can indeed improve on perfection.

It has been a lens where I find it hard to take a bad image. Presently roosting on my Olympus E-M1 attached via a Metabones BT-2 plain electronic adapter it is working as it it were oem equipment. Very happy.

The lens was a curse in many ways as it led me into buying more and more Canon EF lenses and the upshot was that I was trapped in Canon's clutches to continue to but their quite nice but increasingly old fashioned dslr bodies.

In the end I don't notice the lens size, what works works and the lens is robust and has not given me a moment of issues whether from lack of reliable captures or in build quality.

Oh - the hood is a pain to get on and off as it is very tight and grabby. The retailer helpfully produced some graphite dust but it never worked. Nor has it ever improved - maybe I just have a bad copy?

If that was my only problem then it is of pinprick consequence.

I don't know the f4.0, but I can thoroughly recommend the f2.8.

--
Tom Caldwell

Thanks Tom!

Have you ever tried your Canon 17-35mm on your Sony A7R? It would be really useful to me to know how it performs on a FF sensor. If it does well on the A7R it's quite likely to be good on the A7II ;-)

I really don't want to get sucked into buying a load of AF Canon lenses - I'd actually be quite happy with a good MF ultra wide lens (around 20mm) really (if such a thing exists without spending more than the price of the camera!) but I don't want to buy multiple copies of the same lens just to find one good sample; been there, done that!

I have considered something like the Voigtlander 15mm Heliar III but it's kind of expensive and may be just a bit too wide! I think an ultra-wide zoom would be more useful to me.

Tried posting on the Sony FF forum without mentioning my QC concerns about the native lens

I had meant to try out a few EF lenses on the A7R today - more to re-acquaint myself on how they perform and perhaps check the back to back with the E-M1 performance. I did do this with a few lenses a couple of months ago and it was plain that the E-M1 was superior.

But I have two specific notions right at the moment - the 100-400mm MkI and the 17-35mm - both are doing well on M4/3. I just need to see how well they still perform on the A7R. But I was tied up pretty well today and it is now late. Tomorrow is another day.

For a nice wide there is always the Mir-20M in M42 which is a flektogon 20mm f3.5 of some serious repute. It is generally priced higher than the average Russian lens but it is a beauty. Add the fact that the object lens is about as big as a saucer and you will certainly stand out when using it. It is very well corrected and well made. The lens will focus quite close and I find it an ideal copying lens.

The Russian RF wides (Russar MP-2 and Orion-15) are not so wide nor are they fast. But again well corrected and much smaller. Not sure if the Russar would fit on the A7 series but Lomo has remade it with a modified internal baffle - it probably will. But even the Lomo version is probably too expensive.

The Orions and cheaper and compact - they will undoubtedly fit - but are a slow lens. I believe that it is a Topogon design and so it does have a good heritage.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[SimonOL]

I had meant to try out a few EF lenses on the A7R today - more to re-acquaint myself on how they perform and perhaps check the back to back with the E-M1 performance. I did do this with a few lenses a couple of months ago and it was plain that the E-M1 was superior.

But I have two specific notions right at the moment - the 100-400mm MkI and the 17-35mm - both are doing well on M4/3. I just need to see how well they still perform on the A7R. But I was tied up pretty well today and it is now late. Tomorrow is another day.

For a nice wide there is always the Mir-20M in M42 which is a flektogon 20mm f3.5 of some serious repute. It is generally priced higher than the average Russian lens but it is a beauty. Add the fact that the object lens is about as big as a saucer and you will certainly stand out when using it. It is very well corrected and well made. The lens will focus quite close and I find it an ideal copying lens.

The Russian RF wides (Russar MP-2 and Orion-15) are not so wide nor are they fast. But again well corrected and much smaller. Not sure if the Russar would fit on the A7 series but Lomo has remade it with a modified internal baffle - it probably will. But even the Lomo version is probably too expensive.

The Orions and cheaper and compact - they will undoubtedly fit - but are a slow lens. I believe that it is a Topogon design and so it does have a good heritage.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I had meant to try out a few EF lenses on the A7R today - more to re-acquaint myself on how they perform and perhaps check the back to back with the E-M1 performance. I did do this with a few lenses a couple of months ago and it was plain that the E-M1 was superior.

But I have two specific notions right at the moment - the 100-400mm MkI and the 17-35mm - both are doing well on M4/3. I just need to see how well they still perform on the A7R. But I was tied up pretty well today and it is now late. Tomorrow is another day.

For a nice wide there is always the Mir-20M in M42 which is a flektogon 20mm f3.5 of some serious repute. It is generally priced higher than the average Russian lens but it is a beauty. Add the fact that the object lens is about as big as a saucer and you will certainly stand out when using it. It is very well corrected and well made. The lens will focus quite close and I find it an ideal copying lens.

The Russian RF wides (Russar MP-2 and Orion-15) are not so wide nor are they fast. But again well corrected and much smaller. Not sure if the Russar would fit on the A7 series but Lomo has remade it with a modified internal baffle - it probably will. But even the Lomo version is probably too expensive.

The Orions and cheaper and compact - they will undoubtedly fit - but are a slow lens. I believe that it is a Topogon design and so it does have a good heritage.

 

[rodriguezPhoto]

I don't know if the problems are the same but the Olympus ZD12-60 is notorious for its hood problem. Mine got so bad it seemed that I might pull the lens apart taking it off. I tried a couple of things including sanding it and washing off any grit that could be causing binding, but all to no avail. Then someone in the Olympus forum suggested a lubricant. Can't remember the exact type, but I found that Johnson's Pledge furniture polish has it. I sprayed some on a paper towel and carefully applied it to the inside connecters on the hood. No problems since.

 

[bigley Ling]

I have that lens' second cousin the 17-35mm f2.8. In fact it was my very first outstandng lens purchase way back about 2001. Canon re-marketed it as the 16-35mm f2.8 which was said to be an improvement if you can indeed improve on perfection.

It has been a lens where I find it hard to take a bad image. Presently roosting on my Olympus E-M1 attached via a Metabones BT-2 plain electronic adapter it is working as it it were oem equipment. Very happy.

The lens was a curse in many ways as it led me into buying more and more Canon EF lenses and the upshot was that I was trapped in Canon's clutches to continue to but their quite nice but increasingly old fashioned dslr bodies.

In the end I don't notice the lens size, what works works and the lens is robust and has not given me a moment of issues whether from lack of reliable captures or in build quality.

Oh - the hood is a pain to get on and off as it is very tight and grabby. The retailer helpfully produced some graphite dust but it never worked. Nor has it ever improved - maybe I just have a bad copy?

If that was my only problem then it is of pinprick consequence.

I don't know the f4.0, but I can thoroughly recommend the f2.8.

 

[bigley Ling]

I had meant to try out a few EF lenses on the A7R today - more to re-acquaint myself on how they perform and perhaps check the back to back with the E-M1 performance. I did do this with a few lenses a couple of months ago and it was plain that the E-M1 was superior.

But I have two specific notions right at the moment - the 100-400mm MkI and the 17-35mm - both are doing well on M4/3. I just need to see how well they still perform on the A7R. But I was tied up pretty well today and it is now late. Tomorrow is another day.

For a nice wide there is always the Mir-20M in M42 which is a flektogon 20mm f3.5 of some serious repute. It is generally priced higher than the average Russian lens but it is a beauty. Add the fact that the object lens is about as big as a saucer and you will certainly stand out when using it. It is very well corrected and well made. The lens will focus quite close and I find it an ideal copying lens.

The Russian RF wides (Russar MP-2 and Orion-15) are not so wide nor are they fast. But again well corrected and much smaller. Not sure if the Russar would fit on the A7 series but Lomo has remade it with a modified internal baffle - it probably will. But even the Lomo version is probably too expensive.

The Orions and cheaper and compact - they will undoubtedly fit - but are a slow lens. I believe that it is a Topogon design and so it does have a good heritage.

--
Tom Caldwell

Thank you Tom!

I'm in no particular hurry to make a decision but it would be interesting to see how the Canon 17-35 is on a Sony FF sensor, even though your A7R is probably a bit more demanding than my A7II

The MIR-20 looks interesting but I think I'm done with older UW designs; they're not so cheap to buy and generally disappointing in my (quite limited) experience.

I'm leaning towards getting a Voigtlander 15mm Heliar III after getting a few recommendations and reading some stellar reviews for that lens. It's a bit wider than I wanted but that could be a fun challenge in itself! Still interested in hearing alternative suggestions though ;-)

15mm Heliar iii sounds like a very nice lens! I have the ii version, and it works well on lower resolution sensors ie minimal color casting. What I like about the heliars is the size. It is not often to get such wide angle lenses that are pocketable as well.

If you do get the Heliar, pair it with a helicoid M to E mount, which will allow exceptionally close focusing and expand creativity further.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I have that lens' second cousin the 17-35mm f2.8. In fact it was my very first outstandng lens purchase way back about 2001. Canon re-marketed it as the 16-35mm f2.8 which was said to be an improvement if you can indeed improve on perfection.

It has been a lens where I find it hard to take a bad image. Presently roosting on my Olympus E-M1 attached via a Metabones BT-2 plain electronic adapter it is working as it it were oem equipment. Very happy.

The lens was a curse in many ways as it led me into buying more and more Canon EF lenses and the upshot was that I was trapped in Canon's clutches to continue to but their quite nice but increasingly old fashioned dslr bodies.

In the end I don't notice the lens size, what works works and the lens is robust and has not given me a moment of issues whether from lack of reliable captures or in build quality.

Oh - the hood is a pain to get on and off as it is very tight and grabby. The retailer helpfully produced some graphite dust but it never worked. Nor has it ever improved - maybe I just have a bad copy?

If that was my only problem then it is of pinprick consequence.

I don't know the f4.0, but I can thoroughly recommend the f2.8.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I don't know if the problems are the same but the Olympus ZD12-60 is notorious for its hood problem. Mine got so bad it seemed that I might pull the lens apart taking it off. I tried a couple of things including sanding it and washing off any grit that could be causing binding, but all to no avail. Then someone in the Olympus forum suggested a lubricant. Can't remember the exact type, but I found that Johnson's Pledge furniture polish has it. I sprayed some on a paper towel and carefully applied it to the inside connecters on the hood. No problems since.

 

[bigley Ling]

I have that lens' second cousin the 17-35mm f2.8. In fact it was my very first outstandng lens purchase way back about 2001. Canon re-marketed it as the 16-35mm f2.8 which was said to be an improvement if you can indeed improve on perfection.

It has been a lens where I find it hard to take a bad image. Presently roosting on my Olympus E-M1 attached via a Metabones BT-2 plain electronic adapter it is working as it it were oem equipment. Very happy.

The lens was a curse in many ways as it led me into buying more and more Canon EF lenses and the upshot was that I was trapped in Canon's clutches to continue to but their quite nice but increasingly old fashioned dslr bodies.

In the end I don't notice the lens size, what works works and the lens is robust and has not given me a moment of issues whether from lack of reliable captures or in build quality.

Oh - the hood is a pain to get on and off as it is very tight and grabby. The retailer helpfully produced some graphite dust but it never worked. Nor has it ever improved - maybe I just have a bad copy?

If that was my only problem then it is of pinprick consequence.

I don't know the f4.0, but I can thoroughly recommend the f2.8.

--
Tom Caldwell

The 4.0 version is the latest from Canon, and is one many lenses that has been updated to sport better performance across the whole frame at wide open apertures. It seems Canon is playing a bit of catchup here, since four thirds, and premium m43 fast aperture lenses already have this type of performance.

Bigley

I never have had much problem with the 17-35 f2.8. It is good old reliable and always gets me out of trouble when I have some serious photography business on hand. I remember it being superseded by the 16-35mm f2.8 which was reviewed as significantly better and there might have been a MkII of the latter somewhere along the way. In any case mine dates back to about 2002/3 when I bought my first real premium quality EOS EF lens and although I paid a king's ransom for it when I did buy it I have never been disappointed with what it does.

Not checking but as far as I know Canon still makes and sells the 16-35mm f2.8 and I find it hard to see that they would make a f4.0 version of it for anything other than a possible more compact size and perhaps make it more affordable. Maybe the f4.0 is "in addition" not "replacement".

I think Canon might lose "face" if they took an aperture size step-back.

--
Tom Caldwell

Yes Canon still sells the 16-35 2.8 mkii. With every iteration, performance has improved. The 16-35 f4L IS USM replaces the economical 17-40 F4L but adds weight and size. It just happens this new design has emphasis on corner performance. The 16-35 f2.8 mk ii main advantage is it's 1 stop better performance and better depth of field control over it's f4 counterpart. Other than that the 16-35 F4L IS USM has the image stabilizer and better landscape performance.

The 16-35 F4L IS USM is not all that much more compact that the 2.8L mk ii as it has an image stabilizer.

As I said Canon is updating their product line with new designs, so in the not too distant future a 16-35 f2.8 mk3 should remedy any shortfalls of the mk2.

here is a review of the 16-35 F4L IS USM

http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/review-canon-16-35-f4l-is-vs-16-35-f2-8l-ii/

 

[Rol Lei Nut]

Thank you Tom!

I'm in no particular hurry to make a decision but it would be interesting to see how the Canon 17-35 is on a Sony FF sensor, even though your A7R is probably a bit more demanding than my A7II

The MIR-20 looks interesting but I think I'm done with older UW designs; they're not so cheap to buy and generally disappointing in my (quite limited) experience.

I'm leaning towards getting a Voigtlander 15mm Heliar III after getting a few recommendations and reading some stellar reviews for that lens. It's a bit wider than I wanted but that could be a fun challenge in itself! Still interested in hearing alternative suggestions though ;-)

A few things (late answer, am usually on the Sony forum)...

I use the Canon 16-35 4.0 on my A7RII (+Metabones IV T) and find it absolutely brilliant. IMO the complaints about it performing poorly on Sony cameras is due to the length of the adapter: most are shorter than their theoretical length (so all lenses can reach infinity in all conditions), but if too short, they can cause lenses with floating elements (internal focus and/or close range correction) to work outside their design parameters.

The Canon 16-35 4.0 is supposed to be MUCH sharper in the corners than the f/2.8 models and the 17-35. The Sony 16-35 is supposed to be a bit lackluster above 28mm and is more prone to QC problems.

I tested the Arsat 20, the Mir 20 & 24 as well as a 20mm 4.0 Flektogon on the A7RII with pretty Meh results...

Good UWAs are the C/Y or Rolleiflex Zeiss 18mm 4.0 (corners start getting good from 5.6, does vignette quite a lot), Tokina/Vivitar 17mm 3.5 (can be very sharp, but looks slightly flat), Leica R 19mm 2.8 Mk. II (absolutely brilliant, but expensive), Leica WATE 16-18-21 (mind boggling, but horribly expensive). The Olympus OM 21mm 3.5(?) was pretty good, not as good as the 16-35, 16-18-21 or the Leica 19mm, but more than decent, compact and affordable.

 

[bigley Ling]

Thank you Tom!

I'm in no particular hurry to make a decision but it would be interesting to see how the Canon 17-35 is on a Sony FF sensor, even though your A7R is probably a bit more demanding than my A7II

The MIR-20 looks interesting but I think I'm done with older UW designs; they're not so cheap to buy and generally disappointing in my (quite limited) experience.

I'm leaning towards getting a Voigtlander 15mm Heliar III after getting a few recommendations and reading some stellar reviews for that lens. It's a bit wider than I wanted but that could be a fun challenge in itself! Still interested in hearing alternative suggestions though ;-)

A few things (late answer, am usually on the Sony forum)...

I use the Canon 16-35 4.0 on my A7RII (+Metabones IV T) and find it absolutely brilliant. IMO the complaints about it performing poorly on Sony cameras is due to the length of the adapter: most are shorter than their theoretical length (so all lenses can reach infinity in all conditions), but if too short, they can cause lenses with floating elements (internal focus and/or close range correction) to work outside their design parameters.

The Canon 16-35 4.0 is supposed to be MUCH sharper in the corners than the f/2.8 models and the 17-35. The Sony 16-35 is supposed to be a bit lackluster above 28mm and is more prone to QC problems.

I concur, the Canon 16-35 f4L IS USM is the best Canon ultra wide zoom made to date. This is also Canons first ultra wide zoom that can achieve brilliant corner performance wide open at f4.0 without the need to stop down. This lens rivals four thirds and micro four thirds lens which in the past had advantages over full frame lenses for this reason.

I tested the Arsat 20, the Mir 20 & 24 as well as a 20mm 4.0 Flektogon on the A7RII with pretty Meh results...

Good UWAs are the C/Y or Rolleiflex Zeiss 18mm 4.0 (corners start getting good from 5.6, does vignette quite a lot), Tokina/Vivitar 17mm 3.5 (can be very sharp, but looks slightly flat), Leica R 19mm 2.8 Mk. II (absolutely brilliant, but expensive), Leica WATE 16-18-21 (mind boggling, but horribly expensive). The Olympus OM 21mm 3.5(?) was pretty good, not as good as the 16-35, 16-18-21 or the Leica 19mm, but more than decent, compact and affordable.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I have that lens' second cousin the 17-35mm f2.8. In fact it was my very first outstandng lens purchase way back about 2001. Canon re-marketed it as the 16-35mm f2.8 which was said to be an improvement if you can indeed improve on perfection.

It has been a lens where I find it hard to take a bad image. Presently roosting on my Olympus E-M1 attached via a Metabones BT-2 plain electronic adapter it is working as it it were oem equipment. Very happy.

The lens was a curse in many ways as it led me into buying more and more Canon EF lenses and the upshot was that I was trapped in Canon's clutches to continue to but their quite nice but increasingly old fashioned dslr bodies.

In the end I don't notice the lens size, what works works and the lens is robust and has not given me a moment of issues whether from lack of reliable captures or in build quality.

Oh - the hood is a pain to get on and off as it is very tight and grabby. The retailer helpfully produced some graphite dust but it never worked. Nor has it ever improved - maybe I just have a bad copy?

If that was my only problem then it is of pinprick consequence.

I don't know the f4.0, but I can thoroughly recommend the f2.8.

--
Tom Caldwell

The 4.0 version is the latest from Canon, and is one many lenses that has been updated to sport better performance across the whole frame at wide open apertures. It seems Canon is playing a bit of catchup here, since four thirds, and premium m43 fast aperture lenses already have this type of performance.

Bigley

I never have had much problem with the 17-35 f2.8. It is good old reliable and always gets me out of trouble when I have some serious photography business on hand. I remember it being superseded by the 16-35mm f2.8 which was reviewed as significantly better and there might have been a MkII of the latter somewhere along the way. In any case mine dates back to about 2002/3 when I bought my first real premium quality EOS EF lens and although I paid a king's ransom for it when I did buy it I have never been disappointed with what it does.

Not checking but as far as I know Canon still makes and sells the 16-35mm f2.8 and I find it hard to see that they would make a f4.0 version of it for anything other than a possible more compact size and perhaps make it more affordable. Maybe the f4.0 is "in addition" not "replacement".

I think Canon might lose "face" if they took an aperture size step-back.

--
Tom Caldwell

Yes Canon still sells the 16-35 2.8 mkii. With every iteration, performance has improved. The 16-35 f4L IS USM replaces the economical 17-40 F4L but adds weight and size. It just happens this new design has emphasis on corner performance. The 16-35 f2.8 mk ii main advantage is it's 1 stop better performance and better depth of field control over it's f4 counterpart. Other than that the 16-35 F4L IS USM has the image stabilizer and better landscape performance.

The 16-35 F4L IS USM is not all that much more compact that the 2.8L mk ii as it has an image stabilizer.

As I said Canon is updating their product line with new designs, so in the not too distant future a 16-35 f2.8 mk3 should remedy any shortfalls of the mk2.

here is a review of the 16-35 F4L IS USM

http://www.alexnail.com/blog/reviews/review-canon-16-35-f4l-is-vs-16-35-f2-8l-ii/

Test away. This hasn't caused me to weep tears of blood over my (sob) ownership of the (original?) ancient 17-35mm f2.8. I use mine for people images something that was expressly excluded from the review. I find that my purchase so long ago of this wonder-lens has been fully justified and I have no lens envy of the (several) newer versions. Stock prices for the 17-35/2.8 have just fallen, get one while you can - as earlier noted they originally sold for a king's ransom. After such faint praise they must now be at give-away prices.

My guess is that the soft corners are not easily visible except at landscape images near infinity. I am not doubting the rigour of the tests, just why such a versatile lens might be judged and flung into gaol by landscape use test evidence alone.

BTW - mirror lockup and live view focusing - mmm ....... why the dslr?

Maybe "f4.0" makes IS necessary?

--
Tom Caldwell