Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

Hi.

The 16-35/4 is known for its excellent sharpness and colour performance. I have never had the 24-105 but it is an old lens and the newer Mk2 version lens are a big kick up on the older units.

I have the 24-105 and I shoot with it regularly with very high quality.
For wide angle I use the 17-40 so I can't compare to the 16-35 F4, but from what I see, I'd be happy to replace the 17-40 with 16-35. However, it will not replace the 24-105

Pisces With Camera wrote in post #18040409
Hello, I'm interested in this lens for an upcoming trip. Can someone offer some advice on who this performs at the 24,28,35mm ranges compared to the 24-105mm. Thanks in advance.

Have both.

The 16-35 blows the 24-105 out of the water at 24 and 28.
Color rendering is similar, same 77mm filter size, the 16-35 is better for distorsion, sharpness, flare control, wearher sealing, IS, CA.
My 24-105 is pretty good at 35mm however it doesn't have the terrific corner to corner consistency of the other (and btw the other member is right that the 16-35 has its weakest point at 35mm).

These are two different lenses serving different purposes, imo the versatility of the 24-105 as allrounder is unrivalled if you are fine with f/4 and want not too much weight to carry

Francesco

JacobL wrote in post #18029597
Very good picture.

Do you notice a color cast when stacking the singhray reverse grad with additional ND filters?
I have the same effect with formatt filters and was considering the singhray but if you get the same colorcast - no need to spend more money..

sorry for the slow reply mate, the singh ray inherently has a magenta cast to my eyes but it's quite easy to fix, not sure how the hitech one compares tho

personally tho if i were to start over again i think i'd go nisi, better/more versatile holder, cheaper, but high quality glass, and they actually use german or japanese glass and not just resin

i have their 10 stop nd and seriously amazed at lack of colour cast

Sometimes some zoom lenses are stronger on their first FL's than their ends, i feel my 70-200 is sharper at 70-100 range, and 100-400 is sharper in 100-150 range maybe, same with 24-105 which i have, it is sharper at 24-40 at least, i am sure 16-35 is sharper at 16-22 at least or maybe 16-28 because it is a new lens, but from 30mm and up i have a feeling that 24-105 can be slightly sharper if not the same, and you can always trust those many reviews and tests about lenses everywhere.

About filters, yes, since i used glass filters regardless which brand [I mean 4x4 and larger] i never looked back to resin at all, and i am trying to sell my resin filters and hope to buy more glass filters, better in color cast to my eyes, even with color cast it is more manageable than resin anyway and easier to clean, in fact the only 2 drawbacks of glass filters will be the price and quick to break if dropped.

Yay finally got this lens thru CPW. Some first day shots:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/HL5V​51

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/JgyD​B3

A perfect sample of 16-35 F/4K. That's why I bought this lens.

AE-1 wrote in post #18055511
A perfect sample of 16-35 F/4K. That's why I bought this lens.

I saw perfect samples from Nikon 14-24 and Canon 16-35 f2.8II, even from Canon and Sigma 10-22/10-20, so what makes you think the samples here are perfect more than other UWA lenses? I didn't mention Canon 11-24 because it is way overpriced.

Tareq wrote in post #18055549
I saw perfect samples from Nikon 14-24 and Canon 16-35 f2.8II, even from Canon and Sigma 10-22/10-20, so what makes you think the samples here are perfect more than other UWA lenses? I didn't mention Canon 11-24 because it is way overpriced.

Why are you being confrontational about an innocuous and innocent comment? He didn't make any claims about it being "more perfect" than other lenses. Unless I missed something the comment was merely an expression of delight in an image as a "perfect" representation of the 16-35mm f/4L IS image quality. Even photos from a terrible lens could be said to be "perfect" examples of that terrible lens.