Canon 16-35f4L quick comparison images.

[phila]

Very quick test done this morning with my old and well used 2.8L II, the 4L & TS-E 17f4L. 1DX body. All 100 ISO.

www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg

[francois]

Very quick test done this morning with my old and well used 2.8L II, the 4L & TS-E 17f4L. 1DX body. All 100 ISO.

www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg

Thanks for the quick test. It looks like the new 16-35 f/4 is a definitive improvement.

[David Eichler]

Very quick test done this morning with my old and well used 2.8L II, the 4L & TS-E 17f4L. 1DX body. All 100 ISO.

www.philaphoto.com/images/16-35_Test_series.jpg

Interesting. Have you tried a number of copies of the 16-35mm F:2.8? From what I have seen, assuming good copies of the lenses, the edge performance should be at least as good as the the 17-40, at the same apertures and focal lengths, which is obviously not the case with your copy. However, I have tried several copies of the lens and seen vastly different performance. One more example of Canon's mediocre quality control, at least with regard wideangle lenses.

[David Anderson]

IMHO, the various Canon super wide zooms have all been disappointing, but the shots you posted look like there's been a real jump in image quality in the new model.

Very good Canon. 

[Paulowen]

Interesting comments on this lens. However, I'm a self-confessed pixel-peeper and the copy of the 17-40mm I have is nice and sharp right into the corners once stopped down passed f5.6? No justification to change for this new 16-35mm f4 

[David Eichler]

Interesting comments on this lens. However, I'm a self-confessed pixel-peeper and the copy of the 17-40mm I have is nice and sharp right into the corners once stopped down passed f5.6? No justification to change for this new 16-35mm f4 

This has not been my experience after using various copies of this lens (even stopped down to f:8-11), nor was it the experience with several tests of the lens I have read. Not bad (with a good copy), just not something to rave about, from what I have seen. Real world usability is another matter, and a lot of people find this lens quite satisfactory for their needs. I find it adequate for some purposes and not others. From the photos posted above, and a very quick-and-dirty trial with my own copy of the 16-35mm F:4 Canon, it would seem that this lens is on quite another level with regard to sharpness across the entire image area.

[phila]

Interesting. Have you tried a number of copies of the 16-35mm F:2.8? From what I have seen, assuming good copies of the lenses, the edge performance should be at least as good as the the 17-40, at the same apertures and focal lengths, which is obviously not the case with your copy. However, I have tried several copies of the lens and seen vastly different performance. One more example of Canon's mediocre quality control, at least with regard wideangle lenses.

My old f2.8L II has been back to Canon twice for checking (and given a tick both times). I've also tested it alongside a CPS loan lens and couldn't tell the results apart...

I had a 17-40 before the f2.8 and found it to be six of one & half a dozen of the other comparing the two. Depended on the focal length etc.

Having now used the new 16-35f4L for several shoots I'm ecstatic with the results! 

[shadowblade]

In terms of corner sharpness and CA, how does it compare to the Nikon 14-24?

[John MacLean]

In terms of corner sharpness and CA, how does it compare to the Nikon 14-24?

Here it is compared> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

[David Eichler]

Here it is compared> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=4

As best I can see from the comparison, while the Nikon 14-24 may be a bit sharper in the center at some settings, the Canon 16-35 F:4 has better sharpness across the frame, as well as considerably lower CA. So far, I have found my copy to not have any CA worth bothering about.

[John MacLean]

As best I can see from the comparison, while the Nikon 14-24 may be a bit sharper in the center at some settings, the Canon 16-35 F:4 has better sharpness across the frame, as well as considerably lower CA. So far, I have found my copy to not have any CA worth bothering about.

CA rarely is a bother, since one click in LR usually kills it. Distortion can usually be fixed too, but I'd rather it be optically correct. Corner sharpness, now that's a real concern!

[Paulowen]

This has not been my experience after using various copies of this lens (even stopped down to f:8-11), nor was it the experience with several tests of the lens I have read. Not bad (with a good copy), just not something to rave about, from what I have seen. Real world usability is another matter, and a lot of people find this lens quite satisfactory for their needs. I find it adequate for some purposes and not others. From the photos posted above, and a very quick-and-dirty trial with my own copy of the 16-35mm F:4 Canon, it would seem that this lens is on quite another level with regard to sharpness across the entire image area.

Maybe I have found the holy grail of 17-40mm 

[KevinA]

Interesting comments on this lens. However, I'm a self-confessed pixel-peeper and the copy of the 17-40mm I have is nice and sharp right into the corners once stopped down passed f5.6? No justification to change for this new 16-35mm f4 

You can't peep very well then, I've never had a copy that's any good and most other pros I know that had one got rid of it super quick. Resolution was never better than poor even stopped down, contrast, colour and flare resistance was pretty good.