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

mystik610 wrote in post #16998481
It seems the effectiveness of IS decreases as you go wider.

But the practical use of IS increases as you go wider. As the subjects that you want to shoot wide generally don't move much.
Also with half a second shots being doable at 16mm, it is possible to do decent landscapes without a tripod.

Mornnb wrote in post #16998465
The 17-40mm is slighter sharper than the 16-35mm II 2.8 except for the corner of the frame, see:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

The 16-35mm f4? Well I'd say the difference between the 16-35mm f4 and the 17-40mm, is less than the difference between the 17-40mm and 16-35mm II 2.8! The 16-35mm II 2.8 is the worst lens of all three and oddly the most expensive. Apparently 2.8 is worth lower performance and much greater cost.
The 16-35mm f4 is the best in the corners.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

The 24-70mm 2.8 II as usual, rules the day at 24mm.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3

Wow, you are right. Plus, I need to sell my 17-40 at some point, so I don't want to sing the praises of this new lens too much.

Anyone want to by a 17-40 for less than half the price of a 16-35? - it's only very slightly less sharp. Do not buy the 16-35 f4, instead get the 17-40 cheap from all the suckers who bought the new lens.

Mornnb wrote in post #16998494
But the practical use of IS increases as you go wider. As the subjects that you want to shoot wide generally don't move much.
Also with half a second shots being doable at 16mm, it is possible to do decent landscapes without a tripod.

Being able to take a sharp handheld shot of a waterfall/stream at 1/2 second could be pretty amazing as that would be slow enough for a nice motion-blurred water. One might not have to schlep a tripod around to get a great shot on the trail.

ejenner wrote in post #16998498
Wow, you are right. Plus, I need to sell my 17-40 at some point, so I don't want to sing the praises of this new lens too much.

Anyone want to by a 17-40 for less than half the price of a 16-35? - it's only very slightly less sharp. Do not buy the 16-35 f4, instead get the 17-40 cheap from all the suckers who bought the new lens.

I'll probably wait for it to be added to the rebate program or go down in price a little first. To me, corner sharpness is the only thing I don't like about my 17-40. It is actually pretty noticeable (along with some CA) on several of my prints I have hanging on my walls. Maybe not so much to other people (friends/family), but when I see it, it makes me cringe a little bit.

Mornnb wrote in post #16998494
But the practical use of IS increases as you go wider. As the subjects that you want to shoot wide generally don't move much.
Also with half a second shots being doable at 16mm, it is possible to do decent landscapes without a tripod.

I agree. 2 stops still goes a long way when you need DOF, and need some light gathering ability. I'm not a serious landscape shooter......picked this up primarily to shoot set-ups and venues for weddings, or when I need an UWA FOV for creative purposes. Weddings move very quickly, so no time to jack with a tripod. I usually snap landscapes when traveling or out casually, so I really don't have much interest in lugging a tripod around.

Another quick shot in my neighborhood:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/o8mM​Zc

ejenner wrote in post #16996764
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).

What lens is in each of those? The second looks decentered or something. Was the sensor parallel to the wall?

just got my 16-35L f4 IS. will start testing tomorrow. if you want a great deal on a 16-35l II give me a holler

kobeson wrote in post #16998444
A lot of people are raving about the corner sharpness over the 16-35 II, but so far I haven't seen anything that is better than what i can produce with my f2.8 stopped down. Happy to keep mine at this stage.

Corner sharpness isn't everything, but for some architectural work it would come in handy.

the sharpness of the 16-35l II is very good IMO. my only gripe about the f2.8 is sharpness wide open. it's the only lens I own that will not shoot wide open so I don't feel I'm losing a stop. 4 stop IS is a big plus for me.

upgrade cost is $200 to $300 (I paid $1275 for my f2.8II in 2008). for me the upgrade is a no-brainer. corner sharpness is waay overrated and not an issue for what I shoot -- my subject is never in a a corner

FEChariot wrote in post #16998622
What lens is in each of those? The second looks decentered or something. Was the sensor parallel to the wall?

16-35 f4 vs 17-40. Yup. I checked all corners for similarity and the center for focus. Obviously mounted both lenses to the same camera on a fixed tripod, so no change or orientation. I made sure the center was the same (it was, the center sharpness is very similar between the lenses) and then chose a representative extreme corner. It is also the extreme corner - in fact you can see even across the 800px of all the images the 17-40 sharpness changes a lot. If you look at the top right of the 100% crops (I guess I should have mentioned that - I assumed everyone would realize) then the sharpness difference between the lenses is not as dramatic. It's really the extreme corner drop-off in sharpness of the 17-40 that the 16-35 f4 addresses, particularly at the wider apertures where the corner sharpness of the 17-40 degrades dramatically.

I don't know about the digital picture test charts, but my 17-40 looks like other examples I have seen. Perhaps their 'corner' is not the extreme corner, IDK. BUT, the thing is in 'real world' shooting at f8 or f11 you run into DOF issues anyway which make the comparisons less stark. Plus you can sharpen the corners of the 17-40 a bit more (these are all unsharpened) so they will look even more similar after processing. So I do also agree with the points made by others. The 17-40 is still a good landscape lens stopped down, maybe needs a bit more care in sharpening the image and I'm guessing the 16-35 II is also. But I have never used a 16-35 II, so I'm not making any comments about the new lens compared to that lens.

Edit: I guess thinking about it it doesn't 'prove' my 17-40 is not slightly decentered in the horizontal or vertical planes. I probably wouldn't have noticed since I nearly always use it stopped down to f11 or beyond.

Mine has shipped, glad I was able to sell my 17-40L when this lens was announced. For the money my old 17-40L was a very good lens for me, hope I will be just as happy with the new 16-35.

I really hope Canon or Sigma eventually make a 14-24mm EF lens.

ed rader wrote in post #16998636
just got my 16-35L f4 IS. will start testing tomorrow. if you want a great deal on a 16-35l II give me a holler

Ed, I've been layin' low on canon gear.

What's the big appeal on an f/4 with IS?

For my application and acceptable noise control of the 5dmk2 I like f/2.8.

Is this more of upgraditis? or is there some serious benefits I dont see??

I also have had the opportunity to test two lenses side by side (16-35's) and as someone mentioned before, one is a hair wider and one slightly different sharpness characteristics. One has slightly better sharpness, but slightly decentered at 35mm. One is sharper on the right at 16mm, the other on the left. Both with very lowwww CA. One has an IS that is a tad louder.

One does have debris in the lens (not dust. Not sure...) and will be going back.

ed rader wrote in post #16998636
just got my 16-35L f4 IS. will start testing tomorrow. if you want a great deal on a 16-35l II give me a holler

Ed, I look forward to your thoughts. It would be great since you have both lenses, and I always considered you a level headed guy, to give you final impressions after a side by side test.
I have the 2.8II also as you know, but I do shoot it wide open indoors, and for shooting video indoors for people. I also use it for landscape primarily at f11, just curious to see how much improvement in image quality there is stopped down in real world usage.

Posted couple of examples over at the 16-35 f4L lens sample gallery.

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=16998773&po​stcount=36

IS performance is phenomenal. Below shot at 1/6 sec.