Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Gear Reviews Lens Reviews
Thread started 28 Jun 2015 (Sunday) 20:55
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L IS USM, reviewed by jcmedeiros

TOGGLE RATINGS BETWEEN ALL AND jcmedeiros (showing now: jcmedeiros)
Overall Rating10
Overall Image Quality10
Value for Money10
Bokeh8.5
Sharpness10
Contrast10
Focusing10
Must Have10
Suitability to Intended Use10
Got What I Expected10
Ownership Status: "own"

Click here for detailed specs and sample photos.
Click ratings to see total averages and rating distributions.
List all reviews of Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L IS USM
 
jcmedeiros
Member
jcmedeiros's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
Madison, AL - USA
Jun 28, 2015 20:55 |  #1

I own a lot of Canon L lenses. In the wide angle zoom line I have owned the 17-40 f/4L and 16-35 f/2.8L II but I sold them both because they were soft in the corners.

After seeing the specs and reading the early reviews for the 16-35 f/4L IS I decided to buy one. All I can say is wow. The image quality from this lens is incredible and the corners are worlds better in sharpness. In fact, the images are so good you might think it was a prime WA. I typically shoot stopped down, so I wasn't worried that it was only an f/4. The IS is very good too so I haven't missed the speed of the 2.8.

If you're in need of a quality wide angle zoom I highly recommend this lens. At this price point it is a terrific lens.


Regards,
Jay Medeiros

---------------
A pair of 1D's and enough L glass to choke a horse...
http://www.jcmphoto.co​mexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Anandnra
Member
31 posts
Joined Jan 2016
Tennessee, USA
Feb 08, 2016 19:37 |  #2

jcmedeiros wrote in post #17613857 (external link)
I own a lot of Canon L lenses. In the wide angle zoom line I have owned the 17-40 f/4L and 16-35 f/2.8L II but I sold them both because they were soft in the corners.

After seeing the specs and reading the early reviews for the 16-35 f/4L IS I decided to buy one. All I can say is wow. The image quality from this lens is incredible and the corners are worlds better in sharpness. In fact, the images are so good you might think it was a prime WA. I typically shoot stopped down, so I wasn't worried that it was only an f/4. The IS is very good too so I haven't missed the speed of the 2.8.

If you're in need of a quality wide angle zoom I highly recommend this lens. At this price point it is a terrific lens.


Thank you for the informative review. It is a very useful comparison for me as I recently sold my 16-35 2.8ii and deciding between the 4.0 and the 11-24.




LOG IN TO REPLY
TomCruise06
Member
Joined Jun 2017
Sep 20, 2017 10:20 |  #3

jcmedeiros wrote in post #17613857 (external link)
I own a lot of Canon L lenses. In the wide angle zoom line I have owned the 17-40 f/4L and 16-35 f/2.8L II but I sold them both because they were soft in the corners.

After seeing the specs and reading the early reviews for the 16-35 f/4L IS I decided to buy one. All I can say is wow. The image quality from this lens is incredible and the corners are worlds better in sharpness. In fact, the images are so good you might think it was a prime WA. I typically shoot stopped down, so I wasn't worried that it was only an f/4. The IS is very good too so I haven't missed the speed of the 2.8.

If you're in need of a quality wide angle zoom I highly recommend this lens. At this price point it is a terrific lens.


I just bought this lens this week and it is on the way. I have the 7D Mark II. I was looking for a ultra wide angle and heard great reviews about this.

Being an amateur, was I so ignorant to find it out later that this lens is mainly for FF and not for APS-C? For APS-C 10-18 is the best lens?




LOG IN TO REPLY
CH_Devin
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2009
San Francisco, CA
Sep 26, 2017 15:15 |  #4

TomCruise06 wrote in post #18456506 (external link)
I just bought this lens this week and it is on the way. I have the 7D Mark II. I was looking for a ultra wide angle and heard great reviews about this.

Being an amateur, was I so ignorant to find it out later that this lens is mainly for FF and not for APS-C? For APS-C 10-18 is the best lens?

No such thing as an EF lens not for APS-C.

Thanks for the review!


80mm ish

LOG IN TO REPLY
Hokie ­ Jim
Member
Joined Jan 2016
Hillsborough, NC
Oct 23, 2017 08:50 |  #5

This lens probably has my lowest "keeper" rate, but for some places, it's either go ultra wide angle or not get the shot  :p


The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them. - Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Canon 6D | 16-35 f/4L IS | Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 580EXII | Gitzo 1410MK2/RRS BH-55

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Scrumhalf's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
Portland OR USA
Oct 23, 2017 08:57 |  #6

Hokie Jim wrote in post #18478944 (external link)
This lens probably has my lowest "keeper" rate, but for some places, it's either go ultra wide angle or not get the shot  :p

Really? How do you not get keepers with a UWA? It's not like your subject is moving rapidly, or you're trying to hand hold an 8lb monster.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Hokie ­ Jim
Member
Joined Jan 2016
Hillsborough, NC
Oct 23, 2017 16:04 |  #7

Scrumhalf wrote in post #18478952 (external link)
Really? How do you not get keepers with a UWA? It's not like your subject is moving rapidly, or you're trying to hand hold an 8lb monster.

I find getting a non-boring composition at 20mm and below to be much more of a challenge.


The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them. - Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Canon 6D | 16-35 f/4L IS | Zeiss Milvus 50 f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 580EXII | Gitzo 1410MK2/RRS BH-55

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Scrumhalf's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
Portland OR USA
Oct 23, 2017 19:27 |  #8

Hokie Jim wrote in post #18479263 (external link)
I find getting a non-boring composition at 20mm and below to be much more of a challenge.

OK, I see what you are saying. I thought that you were having issues getting a good shot with it. 16mm is ok for me, but I find that the 2mm from my 16-35 to my Rok 14 is a huge difference. I wonder what a 11-24 will feel like.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,552 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Oct 24, 2017 10:06 |  #9

Hokie Jim wrote in post #18479263 (external link)
I find getting a non-boring composition at 20mm and below to be much more of a challenge.

Make effective use of the expanded perspective between near and far objects.




LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
RDKirk's Avatar
12,552 posts
Joined May 2004
USA
Oct 24, 2017 10:08 |  #10

TomCruise06 wrote in post #18456506 (external link)
I just bought this lens this week and it is on the way. I have the 7D Mark II. I was looking for a ultra wide angle and heard great reviews about this.

Being an amateur, was I so ignorant to find it out later that this lens is mainly for FF and not for APS-C? For APS-C 10-18 is the best lens?

The lens is quite usable on an APS-C camera, but it doesn't provide the widest angle for the best price.

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is very nearly as wide, but faster and longer, not to mention less expensive.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Islandphoneman
Member
Islandphoneman's Avatar
32 posts
Joined Jun 2017
Fleming Island FL
Nov 17, 2017 14:43 |  #11

Thank you for the review!




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,536 views & 3 likes for this thread
Canon EF 16-35 f/4 L IS USM, reviewed by jcmedeiros
FORUMS Gear Reviews Lens Reviews


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00144 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.06s
Latest registered member is Bufa
897 guests, 485 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017