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

Sorry, but I have to say it - what a waste ot disk space at POTN.

We all appreciate other people efforts but your so-called-review just be called a "simple biased opinion about (insert lens here)"
Please take a bit more time, and read other true reviews posted here and many other forums. blogs, etc - that should give you a better idea of what can be done to be deemed usefull.

Have a nice day - on the bright side, there is plenty of room for improvement

edit: seems that you are shooting with a crop camera, which would explain why you can't see the blurred corners @17 with f/4 for instance ("another detail" missing on your review)

Nope...Full frame . Try reading what I wrote a little more slowly and you should see where I mention that on Full frame the 17-40 didn't resolve the edges

my opinion may very well be biased - it's my lens and what I think of it so it would be a bit odd if it weren't biased really wouldn't it?

As I have owned both lenses my opinion is based on plenty of experience - and no one is obliged to agree.

However I'd be happy to fill it out when I have more time, not that I think there a lot more to say, in the meantime, if it's a lens you are considering then there's plenty of good info on every aspect of it here

the rest of my gear is in my sig

get out, take some pictures, it's good for the soul ( much better than sweating reviews)

Saying that the lens is only sharper at corners is a gross understatment - it's sharper overall, with better flare control.
Your bias comes from the little you have to say, as "It also has IS but if I'm shooting at shutter speeds where I'd need it I use a tripod anyway"
Yes, I understand it's you own very personal Idaho (POV), but if you really get out enough to use it, you will soon realize that not all the shots can be taken with/on a tripod and with ideal light conditions, and yes, still talking about landscapes. Get into street, travel or general photography, and you will see how much better results you can obtain with the IS. Not a magical bullet, and indeed one can get away without it in some cases. Once one shoot enough in a variety of conditions, soon understands the benefit of IS

Wait to till you get all the time you need do to a proper review; there are other subforums were you can blab just an opinion

Had the 17-40, tried both 16-35 versions, and own the new 16-35 f/4 - most likely will grab the new 11-24 later this year (besides the point anyway). There is nothing on your review that will help anyone decide between this lens or any other.

Get to back to you computer and stay in reading some proper gear reviews done by other people - plenty of good examples here, and other forums, like Fred Miranda, Canon Rumours and many other blogs on the web. Not that you have to copy their style, but there are basics to follow in other to write a proper, honest and useful review, and you completly miss the point of it.

IOW, do a better effort next time - I am sure you are capable

Ouch.

Phil sometimes it's best to just bite your tongue and not post. I do it all the time.

That being said.... I dumped my 17-40 for the 16-35 f4 and am very happy. I love the IS and being able to handhold a UWA. Also, the corners are indeed quite a bit sharper. It's a lens that is always in my bag.

[QUOTE=FarmerTed1971;1​7425317]Ouch.

Phil sometimes it's best to just bite your tongue and not post. I do it all the time.
QUOTE]


....you are right, I have to admit. But I am not that type, no matter what - I am flexible but don't bend; rather break than give up
Anywhoo.
I will delete my previous posts - not that I meant a personal attack on reviewer, just on his ....review (see I can be nicer), but a few things do tick me off.

Ok, I will only read and reply to worthy reviews from now on

EDIT : darn, can't do it anymore. Seems that editing is just a temporary function allowed to a very recent post.


Time to suggest that allowance to moderators...

NWPhil wrote in post #17425274
Saying that the lens is only sharper at corners is a gross understatment - it's sharper overall, with better flare control.
Your bias comes from the little you have to say, as "It also has IS but if I'm shooting at shutter speeds where I'd need it I use a tripod anyway"
Yes, I understand it's you own very personal Idaho (POV), but if you really get out enough to use it, you will soon realize that not all the shots can be taken with/on a tripod and with ideal light conditions, and yes, still talking about landscapes. Get into street, travel or general photography, and you will see how much better results you can obtain with the IS. Not a magical bullet, and indeed one can get away without it in some cases. Once one shoot enough in a variety of conditions, soon understands the benefit of IS

Wait to till you get all the time you need do to a proper review; there are other subforums were you can blab just an opinion

Had the 17-40, tried both 16-35 versions, and own the new 16-35 f/4 - most likely will grab the new 11-24 later this year (besides the point anyway). There is nothing on your review that will help anyone decide between this lens or any other.

Get to back to you computer and stay in reading some proper gear reviews done by other people - plenty of good examples here, and other forums, like Fred Miranda, Canon Rumours and many other blogs on the web. Not that you have to copy their style, but there are basics to follow in other to write a proper, honest and useful review, and you completly miss the point of it.

IOW, do a better effort next time - I am sure you are capable

I'm sure there's a moderator's job being held open just for you, not so sure about the motivational speaker's post though

I Simonius wrote in post #17415110
It also has IS but if I'm shooting at shutter speeds where I'd need it I use a tripod anyway

Yup, good point. I found out the other day that Canon 300mm f/2.8 lens is pretty much the same thing as 70-300L except a lot more expensive. The 300mm f/2.8 can go to f/2.8, and 70-300L does add coverage for 70-299mm range, but since I shoot @ 300mm f/5.6 all the time they're pretty much the same thing. Pretty disappointed in that 300mm f/2.8

I never needed IS on the 17-40, it's how I shoot.,don't need it on the 16-35, and it eats batteries,. IS doesn't inherently improve IQ, as you imply, just in case you didn't know

but if you can't hand hold at 1/30th second, then yes it will make a difference


In which case perhaps you'd prefer to save your money and get one of these when they come out

There seems to be some defensiveness about the 16-35 f4LIS, but I suspect its just elitism. For those without bottomless pockets and using crop cameras, I reiterate my point, the reality is that the IQ on the 17-40L is just as good, and it's it's lighter and cheaper. No point paying for IS and sharp corners if you're not going to use them

I Simonius wrote in post #17432017
I never needed IS on the 17-40, it's how I shoot.,don't need it on the 16-35, and it eats batteries,. IS doesn't inherently improve IQ, as you imply, just in case you didn't know

but if you can't hand hold at 1/30th second, then yes it will make a difference


In which case perhaps you'd prefer to save your money and get one of these when they come out

There seems to be some defensiveness about the 16-35 f4LIS, but I suspect its just elitism. For those without bottomless pockets and using crop cameras, I reiterate my point, the reality is that the IQ on the 17-40L is just as good, and it's it's lighter and cheaper. No point paying for IS and sharp corners if you're not going to use them

It's nice that you never needed the IS on the 17-40mm, but it most certainly does not mean that the feature is useless or not worth the money. No idea what you're shooting with but my camera offers shutter speeds way slower than 1/30th of a second. Oh, and there's that little on/off switch for IS that can help you conserve the battery life...just in case you didn't know

For those using crop cameras there're plenty if excellent options with IS and at f/2.8 for less than the price of 17-40mm (Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS for example). Many of them weight less too.

Nobody here is defending 16-35mm f/4 IS, it's a fine lens that does not need to be defended. Myself and others are simply pointing out that if you're not using certain features of the product that does not mean that they're worthless. As it has been pointed out the review you have written is a waste of disk space at POTN.

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.

OPTICAL QUALITY:
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).

IS:
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.

FOCAL LENGTH:
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 )

My 16-35 f4 is sharper than my old 17-40 both in the centre and much more so at the edges...I had no complaints about the 17-40, it was a very good lens but the 16-35 is considerably better all round...
Maybe you need to calibrate your lens or return it for a better copy

don1163 wrote in post #17561733
My 16-35 f4 is sharper than my old 17-40 both in the centre and much more so at the edges...I had no complaints about the 17-40, it was a very good lens but the 16-35 is considerably better all round...
Maybe you need to calibrate your lens or return it for a better copy

As has been pointed out in reviews on The digital-picture (website) IQ on Canon lenses vary a fair bit from copy to copy. Some are sharper in the corners , some in the centre. The copy I have is no better than the 17-40 except at the edges where it is considerably better

thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts...