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!

 
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Jun 27, 2014 18:53 |  #1186

mystik610 wrote in post #16998481 (external link)
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.


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,806 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 865
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Jun 27, 2014 18:58 |  #1187

Mornnb wrote in post #16998465 (external link)
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 (external link)

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 (external link)

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 (external link)

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.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,458 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8244
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Jun 27, 2014 18:59 |  #1188

Mornnb wrote in post #16998494 (external link)
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.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tagnal
Goldmember
1,255 posts
Likes: 62
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jun 27, 2014 19:08 |  #1189

ejenner wrote in post #16998498 (external link)
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.


5D3 / M3 / S100 / Σ 35 Art / 50 1.8 / 135 L / 17-40 L / 24-70 L / 70-200 f/4 IS L / m 22 2.0 / 580ex II
Toy List | flickr (external link) | FAA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,086 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9471
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jun 27, 2014 19:09 |  #1190

Mornnb wrote in post #16998494 (external link)
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: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5074/14523121305_0d0d3ee501_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/o8mM​Zc  (external link) DSC00131 (external link) by Carlo Alcala (external link), on Flickr

focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 345
Joined Sep 2011
     
Jun 27, 2014 20:12 |  #1191

ejenner wrote in post #16996764 (external link)
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?


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,140 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 456
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jun 27, 2014 20:28 as a reply to  @ FEChariot's post |  #1192

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


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,140 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 456
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jun 27, 2014 20:34 |  #1193

kobeson wrote in post #16998444 (external link)
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


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,806 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 865
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Jun 27, 2014 20:42 |  #1194

FEChariot wrote in post #16998622 (external link)
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.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
peteg1
Goldmember
Avatar
1,384 posts
Gallery: 184 photos
Likes: 1031
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Colorado
     
Jun 27, 2014 21:24 as a reply to  @ ejenner's post |  #1195

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.


Zenfolio (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mclaren777
Goldmember
Avatar
1,482 posts
Likes: 85
Joined May 2012
Location: Olympia, WA
     
Jun 27, 2014 21:34 |  #1196

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


A simple comparison of sensor technology: Nikon vs. Canon (external link)
A technical comparison of sensor technology: Exposure Latitude (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,490 posts
Gallery: 126 photos
Likes: 1281
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Jun 27, 2014 21:39 |  #1197

ed rader wrote in post #16998636 (external link)
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??


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Jun 27, 2014 22:39 |  #1198

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.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Jun 27, 2014 22:43 |  #1199

ed rader wrote in post #16998636 (external link)
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.


My Flickr (external link)
Gear List
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205576

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
StudioAbe
BAAAAAAN!!!
Avatar
1,920 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 997
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Westchester County, NY
     
Jun 27, 2014 22:57 as a reply to  @ kevindar's post |  #1200

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.

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5529/14522373864_11f51baa0d_b.jpg


If it's in focus, it's pornography, if it's out of focus, it's art.
EOS R 5DSR X-H1 x2 | + gear | StudioAbe (external link) | Facebook (external link)

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

257,860 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 ChrisZP
1004 guests, 314 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.