Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul Mayall

Canon's latest 16-35mm f/4 L lens

Recommended Posts

Anybody here using the Canon 16-35mm f/4 L lens.

 

 

I have been struggling for some time with the 17-40mm and it's soft corners on a full frame,  i understand that the 16-35 f/4 is better in this area.

 

Some real user advice would be very appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It's better than the 17-40L which is truly a dog on ff but even so, primes are way better. Canon just don't seem to be able to do really top notch wide zooms (edge to edge). Luckily, I was able to return my copy of the wider zoom.

 

If you want great corner to corner on a Canon wide, the Mark2 24mm ts-e is excellent (a class above the Mark1....I can say that now I've sold my Mark1 :) ). Same goes for the 17mm though no hood is occasionally problematic.

 

There's a few Zeiss ZE in that range that are great.

 

Edit - Sorry, my lens was the 2.8 (supposed to be better) - so ignore above about actual experience of the f4 lens.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had the Canon OLD 17-35L F4 and was unsatisfied, but Canon Canada said it was "within tolerances". Traded it in on a prime Zeiss 18MM. If I need to zoom, I shoot with the 18mm prime and crop in software.

 

The 18mm Zeiss file cropped to zoomed ranges 18-35 yields higher quality than the Canon 16-35 zoomed!!!

 

Sorry about the earlier version of the post, it was the OLD version that was no good. I don't know anything about the NEW 16-35.

 

I know street photographers that regularly shoot wide with a good prime lens and then crop. Zooming takes time and the subject may be gone. Also with a wide prime you do not signal your intentions by putting the camera up to your eye. You just point the camera and shoot.

Edited by Bill Brooks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the old f/2.8 version of the lens (after switching from the old version of the 17-40).....but I thought I'd offer a link to a place where I've seen very good reviews in the past.

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

 

 


Compared to the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM Lens

The 17-40 L's biggest advantage over the 16-35 L IS is price. It is also, as illustrated above, smaller and lighter, but these differences are not big. The 16-35 L IS delivers better image quality including notably sharper corners and less vignetting at wider apertures. The 16-35 L IS' image stabilization feature alone is worth more than the price differential to me. These focal length ranges are similar, but not identical. Both have an advantage, but I expect more to prefer the 16-35's extra 1mm on the wide end than the 17-40's extra 5mm on the long end.

 

Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any experience of  Canons'  new wide angle zoom offering,  but I do own a 17 - 40mm L-series  zoom, which I use with two, full-fame, Canon Digital SLRs. Its true, its soft in the corners, but I don't find this a problem when getting images from this lens through QC.  Of course, I use some corrections in Light Room,  but,  I have used it to produce some of my favourite images. I am particularly taken with the range of  deep colours it gives me, particularly when combined with a circular polarizing filter.  I went for this lens, over the 16 - 35mm  for price reasons, as it was  considerably cheaper!

Edited by John Gaffen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checkthe field curvature wide open, f/4 and 16mm on a landscape. Let me know if you get anything like sharp edges/corners. My test sample definitely did not have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for your input, the http://www.alexnail....16-35-f2-8l-ii/ review pretty much says it all!

 

I have picked up a new 16-36 f/4 this morning,  if i am not happy i will come back to this post.

 

Paul.

 

Good or bad would be interested to hear back. Thinking of picking one up as well in next few months, but have heard mixed reviews.

 

-Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

f/4 at 16mm a little soft in the corners and edges, from 6.3 i notice improvements f/8 seems to give the best results,  it has been suggested to send the camera and lens to Canon for calibration, overall with only a few shots i can see it is a much better lens than my old 17-40L.  Canon has made some effort in obtaining better corners and edges.

 

The lens itself is well balanced and has a quality feel to it,  happy so far,  but it needs some more field work it's early days.

 

On a crop sensor Canon 7D i find it very very sharp from corner to corner

 

Paul.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.