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

MJ23FE wrote in post #16984028
May 16th.

-Jalal

Put mine in May 13 @ 4:00am, they have a ship date of 6/25 for me.

Ordered mine as soon as it was announced (mid-may if memory serves). I've just received it this morning. After having tested it for no AF issues (it's ok), I did some walk around my house with it. I hope I will have time to compare it deeper with my primes (24 and 35 mm). Anyway my first impressions are :

* first time in hand and it looks more plastic (dare I say plastic toy?!) than my other Ls (even the 24-105). The "useful area" of the front glass seems small too! Really surprising. But...

* it's dense! Not heavy (actually it weights more or less like my 24 L), but dense. Anyway, it is very pleasant to handle (at least with a grip-body like, I haven't checked it yet with a "normal" body).

* the zoom ring is a bit tough but I guess it won't be the case after some time.

* Stabilization. I know and understand not everyone is fan of. But I am. And I need it because I can't always have a tripod with me (churches for example) and I'm paying the price of my age (and caffeine, and alcohol, and... Ok let's stop there!).
To be able to shoot a 1/4 s (haven't tested the half second yet) sharp photo at 16 mm is a joy for me.
Note the IS is not loud, but you (at least I) can hear it. It's as loud as the 24-105's IS, or a bit louder than the last Canon's 35 mm. But really less than the 70-200/4 L IS!

* IQ wise: first I have to say that as I'm writing, this 16-35 is not supported by Lightroom nor DPP or Canon cameras. That means there's no profile for automatic lens corrections (AC, distortion, vignetting).
I wasn't able to check all the potential scenes during my walk, so it is hard to say a final word about the AC. But I've seen none so far. Anyway, I know how to handle it.

I can't say this lens has no distortion, especially at 16 mm. But I think low-angle shootings will introduce far more distortion! Anyway, it is definitely not a lens for accurate architecture reproduction (but it is for artistic results!)

This lens vignette a bit wide open, at any focal. It's not the black hole around Uranus :')
Seriously, it vignettes less than the 35/2 IS at f/2 but it is more visible because I have a lens correction profile for this latter. At f/5.6, vignetting is quite indistinguishable.

From f/5.6 up to f/11 (I didn't test smaller apertures since I don't use them at these focals), this lens is tack sharp for all the focals I've tested (mostly 16 mm, 24 mm and 35 mm - but the quick tests I've done for example at 28 mm gave similar results for f/5.6). And it's sharp at any point of the frame. Well to be honest, it is a very little bit less tack sharp at the extreme corners! I guess you see the point. What I like is its sharpness homogeneity across the frame. Nice with P/P.
Wide open, the corners suffer of the vignetting, so their sharpness are not so high. But I don't mind since I don't put my subject in a corner when using this aperture!

* Quality of the bokeh : I'm not buying such a lens to have creamy bokeh! Subject closed!


To conclude, I almost pulled the trigger on a 16-35/2.8 L II (despite its lack of sharpness for my tastes, the missing IS) the day before the announcement of this new UWA zoom. I decided to sleep on it. I was wise (or lucky) that day!
Ok, it's still the honeymoon with this lens, but I don't think time will scour my passion! :')

HTH

PMI order shipped today. Should receive it on Monday! Cancelled my Best Buy order.

Had to cancel B&H, went with PMI. It shipped this afternoon with expected delivery on Monday. Funny thing is, I was only a mere mile or two away from their warehouse all day today.

I have not thought about Lightroom not having profile of this lens. Once anyone has created an approximate lens profile, let us know.

Picking mine up today. Hahahha. Aden is awesome. Not sure if I have too much time playing with it though.

Just picked mine up from Photocraft (my local camera store). Out shooting around now with it. Having never shot with the f/2.8 version or 17-40, I can't really offer any basis for comparison, but from what I've seen so far, this guy is pretty damn sharp across the frame even at f/4, though there's a tiny bit of soft in the extreme, extreme corners at 16mm.

The AF is super fast, the IS is solid though not silent (70-200 2.8ii is ghostly, this one is a mechanical "broom sweeping" sound). It isn't all that heavy either, very walk-around friendly. I'm going to try and take it into DC later for some more interesting shots.

I owned a 6D and 17-40L for most of last year before jumping ship to Nikon, in part because the 16-35/2.8 II and 17-40 weren't sharp enough in the corners for my tastes. From the samples I've seen so far, it looks like the 16-35 f/4L IS has finally caught up with Nikon's equivalent UWA zoom offerings.

In particular, the border/corner performance looks quite similar to the 18-35G I've been using: much better than the 17-40L, but still some slight softness in the extreme corners at the wide end. I can totally live with that. What I could never live with was the sharpness characteristic of the 17-40L: very sharp in the center, but it started degrading only 40-50% of the way between the center and border, and became mush by 80%. The corners were useless, whereas only the true extreme corners (the last 100-150 px radially in a 24 MP file, perhaps) are soft with this new lens.

Bottom line: this lens looks like a godsend for landscapers who prefer zooms, after so many years of Canon neglecting us. Had this been available six months ago, I might still be a Canon shooter. Regardless, glad the rest of you will be able to enjoy it!

brettjrob wrote in post #16985800
In particular, the border/corner performance looks quite similar to the 18-35G I've been using: much better than the 17-40L, but still some slight softness in the extreme corners at the wide end. I can totally live with that. What I could never live with was the sharpness characteristic of the 17-40L: very sharp in the center, but it started degrading only 40-50% of the way between the center and border, and became mush by 80%. The corners were useless, whereas only the true extreme corners (the last 100-150 px radially in a 24 MP file, perhaps) are soft with this new lens.

Going by percentages then, from the few test shots I've done so far, I'd say this lens just starts to get soft-ish at ~90% mark, and even then it's not bad. I'm getting more and more happy with the lens as the day goes on

A very interesting test by a gentleman over at CanonRumors.

http://www.canonrumors​.com …20949.msg407391​#msg407391

"Going by percentages then, from the few test shots I've done so far, I'd say this lens just starts to get soft-ish at ~90% mark, and even then it's not bad. I'm getting more and more happy with the lens as the day goes on."

Does the last bit in the corners sharpen up when you stop down, and if it does, by what aperture would you say?

peteg1 wrote in post #16986190
A very interesting test by a gentleman over at CanonRumors.

http://www.canonrumors​.com …20949.msg407391​#msg407391

Yea. Just looking at the first samples posted by the guy with an example lens, it looked to be on par with the TS-E 17mm at the wide end and those samples also seem to indicate that. It's going to be nice to have a UWA zoom that I don't have to stop down to beyond f11 just to get a reasonably even sharpness across the frame. For landscapes even sharpness is much more important (IMO) than really sharp in 'most' of the frame but much softer in 30-40% of the frame.

17-40's are going to go for about $400 soon.

I'm not getting mine until I get back from traveling next weekend, but I don't need to see any more (although I will be checking out examples) to know this is going to be like a zoom version of my TS-E and very likely sharper at 35mm than the TS-E + 2x TC which is sharp enough for me. I can't believe Canon actually make this lens, let alone that it is affordable.

ejenner wrote in post #16986268
Yea. Just looking at the first samples posted by the guy with an example lens, it looked to be on par with the TS-E 17mm at the wide end and those samples also seem to indicate that. It's going to be nice to have a UWA zoom that I don't have to stop down to beyond f11 just to get a reasonably even sharpness across the frame. For landscapes even sharpness is much more important (IMO) than really sharp in 'most' of the frame but much softer in 30-40% of the frame.

17-40's are going to go for about $400 soon.

Damn, it's sharper at f/4 in the corners than the 17 TS-E is at f/8. Honestly, that sounds a little too good to be true, but I'd love to find out that it's true when my copy arrives next week.

It seems like by f/8, things are almost 100% sharp. Slightly soft, and I'm talking the last tiny bit of corner. At 16mm though, this may even be due to the distortion.

Here's a quick one I took in the camera store, trying to see the corner performance at f/4, 16mm:

2ndviolinman wrote in post #16986231
"Going by percentages then, from the few test shots I've done so far, I'd say this lens just starts to get soft-ish at ~90% mark, and even then it's not bad. I'm getting more and more happy with the lens as the day goes on."

Does the last bit in the corners sharpen up when you stop down, and if it does, by what aperture would you say?

Never mind. I see from the test that there are no worries there. It looks even better than I had dared to hope for. I'm glad I've got one working its way South toward me, and I'm REALLY glad I sold my 17-40 a few days after this was announced.

2ndviolinman wrote in post #16986231
"Going by percentages then, from the few test shots I've done so far, I'd say this lens just starts to get soft-ish at ~90% mark, and even then it's not bad. I'm getting more and more happy with the lens as the day goes on."

Does the last bit in the corners sharpen up when you stop down, and if it does, by what aperture would you say?

Yes, starting from f/5.6, there's a sharpness homogeneity across the frame. You don't need to stop more except for DoF purposes.
I would say that wide open, the corners suffer more from vignetting than softness.
Really an impressive lens.

As a side note : I always find the corners from a 17 TS-E are perfectible. But that's just my opinion!