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

I'm going to rent this lens next month and do some testing against my 24 and 35mm IS lens. These two primes are ultra sharp small, light and work perfect. If the 16-35 IS matches up I could get rid of my 17-40 and both of these primes although the 35 would be hard to let go, it's that good. Three for one would be a hell of a score.

Thinking about this lens I'm thinking its more suited for landscape/interior photographers?

I'm assuming small aperture photography with slower shutter speeds will benefit from IS.

I haven't seen any raw examples. I'm guessing the fresh new lens will have similar micro contrast adapting to canon's new mk2 "house" canon look.

2cruise wrote in post #16999406
I'm going to rent this lens next month and do some testing against my 24 and 35mm IS lens. These two primes are ultra sharp small, light and work perfect. If the 16-35 IS matches up I could get rid of my 17-40 and both of these primes although the 35 would be hard to let go, it's that good. Three for one would be a hell of a score.

You need to keep that 35mm; It's a great lens. I like your work with it and you'll miss f/2.

David Arbogast wrote in post #16999465
You need to keep that 35mm; It's a great lens. I like your work with it and you'll miss f/2.

Thanks and a little overlap won't hurt a bit.

For those of you that came from 17-40 how does flare resistance compare? that was one thing I loved about my 17-40

A test at f11 against the 17 TSE. On reflection the 16-35 seems maybe very slightly less sharp in the extreme corner. It was focused the same as far as I can tell, but I also think this is within a possible focusing difference, even at f11.

Full image:

100% crops TSE 17mm (top) and 16-35 f4 @17mm f11

Some good raw samples you can download from here too:

http://www.canonrumors​.com …21525.msg409872​#msg409872

basketballfreak6 wrote in post #17000423
For those of you that came from 17-40 how does flare resistance compare? that was one thing I loved about my 17-40

I never owned the 17-40 so I can't compare flare characteristics of the 16-35 4.0 to it, but my first experiences with this lens have left quite an impression. It is VERY resistant to flare when shooting a broad scene at distance when exposing to the sky - very difficult to spot, almost non-existent, . . to create readable flare, I had to set up a darker scene and introduce the sun - working through angles to direct sun, the flare I was able to create has the most wonderful signature: disco balls of color displayd close to the source! The crescent near the top right of the frame is the last stroke to render if given enough framing distance from the source, as it does in this shot, the other 6 test shots in this set show starburst with no discernible flare or starbursts with disco balls - sans crescent. I need to spend much more time getting to know it's personality but so far it is remarkable, very promising.

Flare test at f/20

Disco Balls Sans Crescent

AlanU wrote in post #16999451
I haven't seen any raw examples. I'm guessing the fresh new lens will have similar micro contrast adapting to canon's new mk2 "house" canon look.

You guessed correctly Alan "Canon's new mk2 house canon look" This is exactly what I have been thinking but wasn't clever enough to coin the phrase. Here is a SOOC rendering at 20mm f4 - this could have been painted by the 24-70 II Personally, I am highly pleased with the "mk2 house look" . . and so are my clients

I'm a former old school member of the "who needs IS on a wide lens" camp. Not any longer, I now like getting 100% keeper rate at 1/15th and 1/10th - this is very cool.
The bookshelf was in a dark room with only a small window light 15ft away [20mm] has a little sharpening & noise reduction only and the WD-40 [16mm] is SOOC, . . both at f/4

doc.paradox wrote in post #17000843
I never owned the 17-40 so I can't compare flare characteristics of the 16-35 4.0 to it, but my first experiences with this lens have left quite an impression. It is VERY resistant to flare when shooting a broad scene at distance when exposing to the sky - very difficult to spot, almost non-existent, . . to create readable flare, I had to set up a darker scene and introduce the sun - working the angles to direct sun, the flare I was able to create has the most wonderful signature: disco balls of color displayd close to the source! The crescent near the top right of the frame is the last stroke to render, as it does in this shot, the other 6 test shots in this set show either no flare or only starbursts with disco balls - sans crescent. I need to spend much more time getting to know it's personality but so far it is remarkable, very promising.

Flare test at f/20

that's good to know, thanks for the info

Ok picked my copy up, here's a few quick and dirty test shots around the city.

A flare test in Hyde Park. I think it's very well controlled for direct sunlight at such an angle.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/o9c5​bw

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nRMU​ZU