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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 May 2014 (Monday) 12:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35mm f/4L IS is here!

 
basketballfreak6
Goldmember
1,449 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 2650
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
Jul 04, 2014 19:40 |  #1291

ptcanon3ti wrote in post #17012000 (external link)
Nice way to break it in! :)

thanks you :D

if only the clouds and tide would play nice(r) with me this morning, cloud cover was pretty ordinary and tide was too low so had to crop a chunk of the foreground out


https://www.instagram.​com/tony.liu.photograp​hy/ (external link)
flickr (external link)
https://500px.com/tony​_liu_photography (external link)
5DIV, 5DIII, modified 760D, 16-35L f/4 IS, 24-70L II f/2.8, 70-200L IS II f/2.8, S150-600 f/5-6.3 SPORT, S14 f/1.8 ART, S50 f/1.4 ART, S135 f/1.8 ART, 100L IS Macro f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,973 posts
Gallery: 121 photos
Likes: 4129
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jul 05, 2014 01:10 as a reply to  @ basketballfreak6's post |  #1292

I picked up 16-35 a couple of days ago.
Ex 17-40 user, always wanted something better.
16mm F4 test shot, I manually focused on the rail crossing sign.
Full frame.

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3899/14576327262_23930401c2_o.jpg

2260 pixels crop (of 4992 original)
IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3852/14390502769_207616dd63_o.jpg

With some USM
IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2914/14554028816_7f8a33c040_o.jpg

Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Uncle ­ Flash
Senior Member
306 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2012
Location: Western Australia
     
Jul 05, 2014 01:53 |  #1293

I got mine this week but haven't had a chance to take it out for a shoot yet. So far I have noticed:

The Good - I'll never need a tripod at 16mm with the IS.
The Bad - I will have to invest in a something like the Lee filter system if I'm going to include much sky.
More Bad - I bought this because of the horrible corners when wide on the 24-105. With the 70-200 2.8IS, I'm thinking I need another lens in the middle.


Big dreams, small wallet.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 05, 2014 02:10 |  #1294

Photozone:

f11 @ 16/17mm

16-35 f4
3059 - centre
2796 - border
2614 - extreme

16-35 f2.8
3000 - c
2734 - b
2669 - e

17-40 f4
3012 - c
2760 - b
2577 - e


IMAGE: http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_4is/mtf.png

IMAGE: http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28_5d/mtf.gif

IMAGE: http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4_5d/mtf.gif

1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 05, 2014 02:11 |  #1295

Uncle Flash wrote in post #17012362 (external link)
More Bad - I bought this because of the horrible corners when wide on the 24-105. With the 70-200 2.8IS, I'm thinking I need another lens in the middle.

Worse: it will have ot be the 24-70 II :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Uncle ­ Flash
Senior Member
306 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2012
Location: Western Australia
     
Jul 05, 2014 04:49 |  #1296

wombatHorror wrote in post #17012388 (external link)
Worse: it will have ot be the 24-70 II :lol:

Honestly, I would like to fill the hole with a serious 50mm. The L doesn't appeal and the nifty is too nasty (my daughter has one). The 1.4 should fit the bill but how long until we get an IS version? Probably one week after I buy the 1.4!

I like the IS in the 16-35 f4. When I look through it and half press the shutter, it makes me feel like I'm holding onto a gyroscope. It's only psychological, I know but it's a spooky feeling.


Big dreams, small wallet.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basketballfreak6
Goldmember
1,449 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 2650
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
Jul 05, 2014 04:58 |  #1297

Uncle Flash wrote in post #17012473 (external link)
Honestly, I would like to fill the hole with a serious 50mm.

the new sigma 50 art is phenomenal


https://www.instagram.​com/tony.liu.photograp​hy/ (external link)
flickr (external link)
https://500px.com/tony​_liu_photography (external link)
5DIV, 5DIII, modified 760D, 16-35L f/4 IS, 24-70L II f/2.8, 70-200L IS II f/2.8, S150-600 f/5-6.3 SPORT, S14 f/1.8 ART, S50 f/1.4 ART, S135 f/1.8 ART, 100L IS Macro f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Jul 05, 2014 22:20 as a reply to  @ wombatHorror's post |  #1298

Just go for the 24-70mm II it is a fantastic lens. :D It kicks every other zooms arse at 24mm and 35mm. And it's performance is comparable to the Sigma 50mm Art as well, gets up to 3700+ in the centre. Best of primes like performance.


IMAGE: http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2470_28_mk2/mtf.png

IMAGE: http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_50_14art/mtf.png

Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Iggy12
Senior Member
Avatar
286 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Likes: 236
Joined Oct 2013
Location: Saskatchewan
     
Jul 06, 2014 00:10 as a reply to  @ Mornnb's post |  #1299

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3913/14392161819_eb8a9a1e31_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nVMA​i2  (external link) tracks (external link) by MooseNut12 (external link), on Flickr



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 06, 2014 20:22 as a reply to  @ Iggy12's post |  #1300

16mm f/8 full sample
https://farm4.staticfl​ickr.com …05531228_007546​d3e9_o.jpg (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 07, 2014 23:33 as a reply to  @ wombatHorror's post |  #1301

Various things:

1. 24-70 II definitely has considerably more 1st order lateral CA at 24mm f/8 than the 16-35 f/4 IS

2. 16-35 f/4 IS has more 2nd order lateral CA at 24mm f/8 (but this amount is much less than the amount of 1st order lateral CA the 24-70 II has at these settings)

3. 24-70 II fights off longitudinal CA exceptionally well at 24mm f/8, not yet sure where to place 16-35 f/4 IS but it is certainly among the better even if it should turn out to have more than 24-70 II, not sure yet in any case

4. if the main subject is on order of only 20-30' away, the slightest, slightest focusing changes, and I mean SLIGHTEST, can have quite a great effect as to what nearest corners look like and what farther corners or far away center top detail look like; this means it's pretty important to be shown all corners and center, if some test just picks one corners to compare, forget it since it could easily be a focus nudge as the lens performance itself, at least if you see all corners you can see if the DOF placement was a bit different and if far stuff seems crisper on one shot and near on another; I'm guessing if you chose a focus subject a good deal farther away, maybe 50'+ perhaps it becomes less sensitive to tiny, minute focus changes

5. I've seen some talk that the 16-35 f/4 IS has a weird tone shift, all I can say is it seems almost impossible to tell apart from my 24-70 II. Perhaps the older 17-40L and 16-35 2.8 had a different tint than the new glass. I don't have those to compare with at the moment. At the least, it seems to give the same color balance as the 24-70 II pretty much. Probably a bit less yellow than Tamron 28-75 tint.

6. 24-70 II has considerably more distortion at 24mm than the 16-35 f/4 IS when they are focused at the 25' ballpark

7. fully correcting for 24-70 II 24mm distortion when focused at the 25' ballpark does seem to rob away a bit of microcontrast and tiny bits of res; if the 24-70 II is sharper than the 16-35 f/4 IS then I'm pretty sure it's equal, at best, if both are fully corrected for distortion (of course many landscapers don't always bother with distortion correction) from what I can see

8. you;d think that mounting lenses onto a camera locked in place on a tripod would have all the lenses aiming the exact same way. but again and again, I've noticed while doing lens tests that lens to lens the scene tends to shift a bit. I used to think maybe it was just slightly knocking something, but I've now seen a consistent direction in change for some lenses so I think it must be that most lenses all have the mount or something tilted just a bit differently. I saw a clear difference between my 70-300L and 70-200 f/4 IS and tamron 70-300VC and I can see a difference between two copies of 16-35 f/4 IS, in the latter case I can see that one copy consistently has the scene shifted a touch vertically, one of the copies seems closer to my 24-70 II but not quite the same. I recall various 24-70 II not aligning up in a target quite the same way either. If the shift or tilt is enough I bet it also makes it harder to test things out evenly in comparison with real world shots. The difference can be enough that for a real world shot you'd want to slightly reframe your scene swapping between different copies of the same lens. I bet the body mounts are all slightly different too.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 07, 2014 23:34 as a reply to  @ wombatHorror's post |  #1302

9. Part of me is suspicious that with the complex lenses of today, that perhaps different lens designs don't apportion the DOF in the same ratio in front and back of the plane of 100% perfect focus center frame. I'm not sure if that is possible or not. ??? I almost want to think that the 24-70 II focused at around 25' ends up with DOF shifted a touch forward compared to the 16-35 f/4 IS??? Not sure though at all. (of course it could easily happen if something is titled so that top frame is say focusing closer than bottom frame too) Anyway not sure.

10. It seems like out of a whole bunch of shots there always seems to be at least one where the 24-70 II has this crazy mad sharpness on the main target pehaps better than the 16-35 f/4 IS, but I haven't been taking enough trials to be sure it's anything. I do have one frame that has a crazy peak main target sharpness that is just a bit better than any of the shots from the 16-35s, OTOH the trees that are farther back are a touch softer than all of the good 16-35 shots. Not sure if a minute tweak forward of the focus would've brought a 16-35 frame to the same crazy target sharpness or not.

11. I found one frame from the 24-70 II and a 16-35 f/4 IS where the 24-70 II had the far away trees more in the same ballpark as the 16-35 and same for the front corners, in this case the 16-35 almost seemed a trace sharper at the main target, for sure if distortion correction was applied to the 24-70 II.

12. it almost seemed like one 16-35 may have done front lower near corners just a touch better than the other, but also perhaps be a touch softer midframe, hard to be sure; The 24-70 II kept getting the extreme upper left corner of the this scene crisper than the 16-35s, etc. etc. it's hard to figure stuff out since corner to corner with copy variation and focus tweaks and so on.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 07, 2014 23:34 as a reply to  @ wombatHorror's post |  #1303

I will do a careful test chart sort of test and see what that shows.

Probably fair to say the 16-35 f/4 IS holds up pretty well at 24mm f/8 and nothing to worry about (even just for the CA differences alone I suspect it might do better compared to the older zooms at 24mm than some test numbers imply; I still plan to give it comparison to a 16-35 2.8 II).

Whether it is a bit better or worse, it's possible might depend upon the exact scene (in some cases it seems like 24-70 II might be a bit sharper at main subject if you let DOF fall where it may and maybe about the same if you try to balance it all??? at least at certain particular focusing and subject/scene distances) and where you wish DOF to be and copy variation.

If you are one who does always apply distortion correction (again many landscape people do not though) then I'm pretty sure the 16-35 f/4 IS will perform at least as crisply in the bulk of the frame, if not more so, since I have the impression that the correction needs to shift things around enough to at least, if not more, than counter any potential micro-contrast or resolution advantage the 24-70 II might possibly have under certain circumstances, at least that is what it seemed like in PS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 07, 2014 23:35 as a reply to  @ wombatHorror's post |  #1304

100% crop across the center frame 24mm f/8:
https://farm6.staticfl​ickr.com …01114192_8781e8​2e20_o.jpg (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jul 07, 2014 23:36 as a reply to  @ wombatHorror's post |  #1305

No CA correction applied 200% crops, 24mm f/8:

left edge:
16-35 f/4 IS:

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5484/14601164282_3ca510857a_o.jpg

24-70 II:
IMAGE: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14415166108_79fc98a3fc_o.jpg

left upper outer mid-frame:
16-35 f/4 IS:
IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3885/14415167258_a0849cd9f7_o.jpg

24-70 II:
IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3840/14621846963_39fde5433c_o.jpg

24-70 II has almost infinitely more lateral 1st order R/G CA (perhaps some hidden 2nd order B/Y lateral CA), the 24-70 II doesn't really have all that much, it's just the 16-35 has like just about none at 24mm f/8. 16-35 f/4 IS showing a little bit of 2nd order B/Y lateral CA.

Although these types, unless too extreme, usually correct relatively well in programs.



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

256,871 views & 2 likes for this thread
16-35mm f/4L IS is here!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is AlexRapp
1181 guests, 289 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.