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

So any tests like these and brick wall tests made the 16-35 look much, much better than the 17-40. However, I found it interesting (although I could have guessed) that when you need a large DOF the exact aperture you use and focus point is extremely important. So much so that I had trouble comparing the two lenses and making all the corners look consistently sharper with the 16-35. Of course the overall image was sharper, but posting the results from any one corner could look either worse or better than you might expect.

Of course at f4 or f5.6 it absolutely kills the 17-40 in the corners. But who's going to shoot brink walls at f4? Well apart from testing, not me, but here is the brick wall test at f5.6 (lower right corner).

And at f8 for grins.

and f16

I also just managed to test against the TS-E 17mm before it got dark. I tested at f11 since this is where I'm most interested and it was very close. The TS-E was very slightly sharper in parts of the image and has a bit less CA.

You wouldn't see the differences posted here at 100%. I can see them at 200% side-by side on my monitor.

I certainly would no longer advise getting a TS-E 17mm purely for the sharpness over the 17-40 or 16-35 f2.8II for landscapes.

I couldn't really test distortion, but I have a suspicion that none of these UWA lenses have exactly true front elements (or possibly other elements). I have two copies (didn't cancel one in time) and tested both. One seemed slightly wider and very slightly different distortion (sort of like tilting a TSE very, very slightly). Sharpness contrast and color were indistinguishable.

However, against the TSE, the one I'm keeping has a kind of side-skew distortion. Hard to describe and no way that you'd notice it by looking at the shot without flicking back-and-forth with the TSE shot.

EDIT: looking at it again, it might just be increased barrel distortion over the TSE. Looks to be similar to the 17-40 and applying the 17-40 lens correction looks decent (also the vignette correction from the 17-40 looks about right too).

Hi,

When I said on my first day with the lens that it seemed to be picky about where it was focused, this is what I was getting at. I have been "playing" with the lens in my spare time for 3 days now, and there is no doubt that the lens is very sharp, corner to corner. Getting that sharpness to show up where you want it to be is taking some learning on my part.

I'm looking at pictures where there is grass 3 feet in front of the camera 5 feet down, and a tree limb 20 feet in front of the camera, but 100 feet up, and a house back there somewhere with hydrangeas in between, and plenty of pine needles to show every manner of CA, of which there is very little, and looking at this @100%, well, you can forget about depth of field charts and hyperfocal distances. It was the same with the 17-40, and when trying to focus on a scene like this, I would routinely focus at several different distances and shoot several frames, and choose the best compromise for that scene later.

I cannot show a single real world picture that will tell the whole story of this lens. At 16mm-24mm where I have been concentrating, every distance and every area of the frame CAN be very sharp by f/5.6 (probably not in one plane @16mm though), so it is up to us to use that capability to get the results we want.

I am very happy with this lens, but I need to learn how to use it. It's not simple to get the best out of it.

eriet30 wrote in post #16994961
I love the size of the hood. Less wide than the 17 40

And it clips in, like the TSE. I guess I haven't bought a recently released lens before - err no I got the 100L, that's not too old.

Anyway, the hood is sweet IMO.

Also takes regular thickness polarizer without vignetting (as do the 17-40 and 10-22, so no surprise there).

pinoyplaya wrote in post #16995410
Anyone with comparison shots with IS turned ON and turned OFF? Same image. On a tripod :P

I mean... don't you usually use a tripod when shooting with these lenses as it is mainly for landscape anyway? especially considering its so slow. So the IS would be kind of useless?

I guess I should try to test IS on a tripod, but with all the other lenses I have the 'tripod sensing' thing doesn't apply to shutter speeds in the 1/4 - 5s range. It might stop it jumping around, but it doesn't stop it moving slightly.

OK tested on a tripod.

Canon is definitely improving their tripod sensing IS.

The 100L, although it will still give the odd blurred shot on a tripod with IS on, is definitely better than the 24-105 or 70-700 f4.

Now, the 16-35 is in a different league. As long as you are using a 2s timer, it settles down and does not move at all. I took a 5 shot bracket with (2s timer) exposures up to 8s and all were sharp and perfectly lined up. This is not something that usually occurs with the other lenses I have. Even if the SS is above 1/30s and the IS does not cause any blur, the images in a bracket often do not exactly line up.

Here are some 16mm SOOC test shots: @ f10

and f4 @ 1/20th [Edit: whoops, these 2 had a little shadow lift in LR - not SOOC]

^ looking good. Is there a lightroom profile for this lens yet?

Mine's arriving on monday (which is kind of a shame as i have a wedding on sunday!). I'm hoping to get good use out of the IS. When i was a Nikon shooter i had the 16-35 F/4 VRII which i loved. So glad canon have one now that looks to be as good or better

no LR profile yet, stopped down the 16-35 2.8 II profile looks pretty good . . . I'm sure a smooth user created profile will be out on the internet in short order.

I can't believe how well this lens controls CAs, at ALL stops - remarkable. . I also tried my best to blow out a shot shooting right into the sun - flare control and remaining contrast is stellar!

IQ is very reminiscent of the 24-70 II - Canon is on a roll!

Bokeh is a tad swirly though . . . oh dear, I was expecting buttah (sarcasm)

SOOC 35mm f/4

^Impressive test shots doc.paradox. Thanks for posting them.

Wow....this lens is really good at taking pictures of brick walls....

shots i've seen so far do kind to remind me of the 24-70 ii in terms of colour/sharpness

rampanthamster wrote in post #16997428
shots i've seen so far do kind to remind me of the 24-70 ii in terms of colour/sharpness

My impression after shooting with this after a couple of days is that its an extension of the 70-200II, and 24-70II...which is a very good thing!