Do try not to worry about POTN disk space - I enjoin thee to post duck shots instead - much better than concerning yourselves with things that don't need to concern you.
DiMAn0684 wrote in post #17432273
. if you're not using certain features of the product that does not mean that they're worthless.
what an unexpected interpretation of what I wrote and surprisingly defensive. As it clearly concerns some people a great deal, I will try to dispel the concern that the 16-35 f4L is worthless.
Sorry not to have done a more comprehensive review earlier but I didn’t realise so many people were waiting with bated breath or hanging on my every word - it was never my intention to upset those who HAVE bought this lens and were suddenly dismayed to find from my first review that it was worthless.
Be reassured it is NOT worthless , I have bought it and I use it after all.
I mostly shoot landscapes and mostly at f8 - f11 on a full frame sensor. At these f-stops n the CENTRE of the frame the 16-35 is not optically better than the 17-40:- nor is it at f5.6 for that matter and I doubt it's any better at f4 as the 17-40 is pretty impressive in the centre. In fact in the dead centre the 17-40 is a tiny bit sharper. That does NOT mean the new lens is worse
With tripod-used shots, there is no discernible difference in the centre of the image between the two lenses when printed to 17" wide.
If you only look at sharpened images at pixel level on a screen then you might find some minuscule differences (or you might not) - for prints you’ll not see any difference.
If you use a crop sensor camera then the edges seen on a Full frame camera are hardly seen at all so the edge advantage of the new lens on a crop camera is minimal.
That doesn't make the new lens worthless, it just means the old lens was excellent in the centre (and cheaper and lighter).
Landscapes often are made up of several shots with exposure compensations, IS makes no difference here, as the camera needs to be on a tripod, unless you are going to spend hours in post processing, masking out things that don't quite align.
There are softwares out now that might let you get away with this but again it's is more risky than using a tripod, more time consuming and less reliable. Depends what sort of quality you want, you didn’t buy it just to use bad technique did you?
I don’t use it for multiple exposures, I use a tripod. So for this kind of shooting the new lens has no advantage with IS.
That doesn't make IS or the new lens worthless, it just means that for my uses the IS facility isn't the best option in this situation
If you are using long exposure times to get blurred clouds or water etc, IS doesn't work for this. Landscapes are also often made with slow shutter speeds, often out of a range where IS might be sensibly used.
Using IS at 8th, 1/4, 1/2 second or slower is possible but not so sensible, if you do have a tripod use it, it is a much safer bet if you want to find you have optimally sharp images when you get home. You might get away with it, but I wouldn't rely on it.
Also a tripod doesn't drain the battery, which IS does.
Where IS might come in handy would be if it were cold and you had shaky hands from the cold - personally I can’t be bothered shooting if I’m that cold, nor do I shoot from helicopters, from moving cars, from fairground rides or when parachuting from a plane etc. If you do then YMMV. If you are in a situation where a tripod is not feasible then the new lens offers you IS which might save the day.
If you use IS it drains the battery much faster - so buy a spare battery if you intend using it.. However there’s nothing to stop you buying extra batteries and using it all the time if you like.
So I am not saying IS us worthless, just I don’t personally have much use for it.
the new lens is a teeensy-weensy bit wider but noticeably shorter at the long end than the old f4 lens. I preferred the FL range of the old lens, but that doesn’t make the new lens worthless
So to sum up- if you have a crop camera and don’t need IS, there is little advantage to getting the new lens this means the old f4 is an exceptional lens optically, (except for the corners) it does not mean the new lens is worthless.
If you have Full Frame sensor get the new lens for the corner sharpness. The IS is there if you can find a reason to use it.
That doesn’t make the new lens worthless, it means if you have a FF camera it is better. If you have occasion to need IS in a wide angle lens, then it is better.
If you don’t need those things then its not, but it is heavier and more expensive, and I have the distinct impression it has stronger distortion than the 17-40 at the edges - buildings quite well in from the edges lean noticeably.
This image below shows the advantage to the 16-35 f4L over the 17-40 f4L on a FULL FRAME sensor, and is the single reason I bought it i.e.the edges.
As you can see the edges are full of lovely detail and not mushy as they would have been on the 17-40 on a FF sensor.
(sorry it's not ducks - I will try to post duck samples at a later date )
Side flare is quite strong - it's there middle right and lower right as well as the more obvious middle left
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
say quack ... snap!! It's a wrap!