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!

 
rampanthamster
Member
135 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2012
     
Jun 30, 2014 12:15 |  #1231

I'm a wedding photographer and decided on the F/4L over the F/2.8L because i'm looking forward to using IS for creative purposes. I very much primarily shoot with my 35 1.4 and 85 1.2 any way :)


5D Mk III (x2) - 16-35 F/4L - 24-70 F/2.8 II L - 35 F/1.4L - Sigma 50 1.4 ART - 85 F/1.2L - 135 F/2.0L - Samyang 14mm F/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jun 30, 2014 14:31 |  #1232

rampanthamster wrote in post #17002712 (external link)
mine just arrived - it really does look and feel exactly the same as my 24-70 ii. IS seems good although not the quietest (nowhere near as silent as the nikon 70-200 vr2 which is the only other vr lens i've ever tried). What's the deal with back button focusing and IS. I use BBF exclusively and at the moment my camera is set to enable IS when the af-on button is pressed, or the shutter button. It occured to me that this may waste battery and that i might actually be better to have the IS kick in as i press the shutter.

Thoughts?

edit: actually, it looks like there isn't an option to do this on my 5d III...

that wouldn't be a good thing anyway, as IS takes time to spool up, if it started only on shutter trigger you'd likely get a mess (maybe the Mark I super-tele sports Mode 3 fast spool mode is a different story, not sure, but certainly on any other lens, not giving the IS an instant to settle first is a recipe for messed up shots)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,806 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 872
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Jun 30, 2014 15:24 |  #1233

kevindar wrote in post #17003187 (external link)
I
the poster also spoke about being surprise how well the 16-35II did in corners at 16mm and f11. a proper functioning copy of the 16-35II is indeed very good in the corners at f11. However, its not super crisp throughout the frame, as the mtf charts show, it has a somewhat of wave as you move away from center.

This interested me becasue even from other reviews I got the impression that the 16-35 II wasn't sharper than the 17-40. None mentioned that it has very different characteristics at f11 which is really important for landscapes. I would possibly have splurged for a copy to test against the 17-40 if I knew what I know now. IMO for landscapes a bit of a wave is better than a sharp drop-off.

Or maybe I just didn't search for the kind of tests/reviews we are seeing now against the 16-35 f4. In any case I guess it is mute now. The 16-35 f4 hit the 'sharp enough' category for me.


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
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,806 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 872
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Jun 30, 2014 15:38 |  #1234

wombatHorror wrote in post #17002520 (external link)
It seems remarkable touchy, just a little nudge and the main object is no longer utterly 100% 24-70 II-like sharp and near corners vs far corners focusing changes.

I agree. I did actually take several shots in my examples each time focusing at 10x in LV. While the focus ring is nice and big, it's darn sensitive. I don't have the 24-70 II to compare with, but the TS-E seems easier (well duh, it's MF to begin with, so should be).

Not the best characteristic of a 'landscape' lens IMO. I will be trying to MF this lens a lot - I might have to use contrast detect in 10x zoom more although I got out of that habit after getting the TS-E.

I don't particularly like the sunstar either, but I hardly ever shoot for sunstars anyway. I wonder what discussions went on in Canon for the # blades and shape - bokeh vs personal opinion on sunstars vs any engineering issues or cost. Someone pointed out the bokeh is not the nicest, but is seems do do OK with general backgrounds (unlike say the 24-105) even if OOF highlights are a little 'onion-y'.


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
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Jun 30, 2014 15:55 |  #1235

ejenner wrote in post #17003543 (external link)
This interested me becasue even from other reviews I got the impression that the 16-35 II wasn't sharper than the 17-40. None mentioned that it has very different characteristics at f11 which is really important for landscapes. I would possibly have splurged for a copy to test against the 17-40 if I knew what I know now. IMO for landscapes a bit of a wave is better than a sharp drop-off.

Or maybe I just didn't search for the kind of tests/reviews we are seeing now against the 16-35 f4. In any case I guess it is mute now. The 16-35 f4 hit the 'sharp enough' category for me.

I have posted test at f11 before.
this one is f14, 16mm no distortion correction, no cropping, I will give you link to original. As you can see, even in the corners, shaprness is not an issue.

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5559/14341730327_b5324b5d4e_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nRk7​Lx  (external link) 16mm f14 (external link) by kevindar (external link), on Flickr
Link to original (external link)

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,133 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6196
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jun 30, 2014 16:03 |  #1236

sharpness looks really good there, even in the corners. Lens looks like a winner.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jun 30, 2014 16:03 |  #1237

ejenner wrote in post #17003577 (external link)
I agree. I did actually take several shots in my examples each time focusing at 10x in LV. While the focus ring is nice and big, it's darn sensitive. I don't have the 24-70 II to compare with, but the TS-E seems easier (well duh, it's MF to begin with, so should be).

Not the best characteristic of a 'landscape' lens IMO. I will be trying to MF this lens a lot - I might have to use contrast detect in 10x zoom more although I got out of that habit after getting the TS-E.

I don't particularly like the sunstar either, but I hardly ever shoot for sunstars anyway. I wonder what discussions went on in Canon for the # blades and shape - bokeh vs personal opinion on sunstars vs any engineering issues or cost. Someone pointed out the bokeh is not the nicest, but is seems do do OK with general backgrounds (unlike say the 24-105) even if OOF highlights are a little 'onion-y'.

I actually love the sunstars on this and the 24-70 II.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Jun 30, 2014 16:27 |  #1238

Charlie wrote in post #17003631 (external link)
sharpness looks really good there, even in the corners. Lens looks like a winner.

charlie, Not sure if you are replying to my post. thats the much maligned 16-35II.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,133 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6196
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jun 30, 2014 16:48 |  #1239

kevindar wrote in post #17003684 (external link)
charlie, Not sure if you are replying to my post. thats the much maligned 16-35II.

that's good at F11. Cant imagine getting much better.

edit: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4 (external link)

the F4 IS looks a tad better on the test chart, but difference probably doesnt translate to real life photos. I dont have either at this point, but will likely get the F4IS down the line simply because it's a tiny bit better AND costs less. Now if canon offers a 16-35 mk3 with upgraded optics and/or 16-35 F2.8 IS, I'de be back to square 1 :)


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,806 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 872
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Jun 30, 2014 16:49 as a reply to  @ kevindar's post |  #1240

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx (external link)

TDP review. A point not yet mentioned:

1. I also noticed the lens seemed to be close to parfocal, but didn't test. Still very nice for me.


Also, I'd like to re-iterate the hood point he makes. I never used the hood on the 17-40, but will always on the 16-25 f4.


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
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Jun 30, 2014 17:08 |  #1241

I have no doubt the 16-35 f4 will be sharper side by side even at f11. what that translates to in print, and what is the threshold of sharpness would be for each person to decide. I just never found the corner sharpness of 16-35II poor at f11, where I shoot landscape.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Jun 30, 2014 18:00 |  #1242

Some from me:

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3879/14542513911_131e2b9493_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oa5b​Jt  (external link) 5D3_3339.jpg (external link) by invertalon (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2897/14566223253_7aba29cf47_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ocaG​Ge  (external link) 5D3_3474.jpg (external link) by invertalon (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3884/14545168952_b43e5827e6_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oaiM​Z3  (external link) 5D3_3434.jpg (external link) by invertalon (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/14545154222_f6f07fc671_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oaiH​B5  (external link) 5D3_3462.jpg (external link) by invertalon (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5498/14544524304_1d636ba31e_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oafu​mq  (external link) 5D3_3456.jpg (external link) by invertalon (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5550/14545073352_5207cbd84d_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oaii​yL  (external link) 5D3_3426.jpg (external link) by invertalon (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5538/14359514697_10968659f1_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nSUg​rB  (external link) 5D3_3404.jpg (external link) by invertalon (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3885/14545964225_fb925493a3_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oanS​oD  (external link) 5D3_3395.jpg (external link) by invertalon (external link), on Flickr

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattD
Senior Member
Avatar
944 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Norwich UK
     
Jun 30, 2014 18:04 |  #1243

^^^^ brilliant shots. Especially the long exposure of the spinning thing (whatever this things are called)


Flickr (external link).
500PX (external link)
Twitter (external link)
Tumblr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Jun 30, 2014 18:04 |  #1244

all that said, so this does not turn in to rationalization, If I did not already have 16-35II and did not use the lens at 2.8, I would defintiely by the f4 IS lens. its optically a better lens, and kudos to canon for making a reasonably priced, sharp lens. Having owned the nikon 14-24 2.8, I would say the 16-35 is the king of ultrawide zoom lenses.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Jun 30, 2014 18:07 |  #1245

MattD wrote in post #17003835 (external link)
^^^^ brilliant shots. Especially the long exposure of the spinning thing (whatever this things are called)

Thanks! That one was hand-held at 1/4 second SS... I had others down to 1/2 second which were good as well... SO I suppose the 4-stop thing is true, but my hit rate is really low at 1/2 second... It is more like luck at that long of exposure hand-held. I prefer to keep this lens above 1/4 or even 1/10 for better odds :D


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

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

258,693 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 Andyloc
1050 guests, 239 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.