Hey guys,
As an amateur landscape photographer I was excited to get my hands on one of the first copies of the 16-35 F4. I've been collecting image results ever since, and I recently wrote a Canon 16-35 F4 Review and uploaded 35.7GB of images captured with the 16-35 F4, mainly landscape and travel photographs, with quite a few optical performance tests side-by-side's with the 17-40.
Watch the video review: http://youtu.be/K7n1L1QCjqUClick here to read the full review: http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/canon-16-35mm-f4-review-hands-on-shootout-17-40/ (35.7GB of RAW/TIFF files)
As a Nikon 14-24 and Canon 17-40 shooter I like that this lens has IS, but if there was a non-IS version I'd get that one. It has less CA than both the 14-24 and the 17-40, based on my copies. It's also sharper than both at the corners, but performs similar on center sharpness. Interestingly enough the 17-40 actually resolved sharper on center sharpness on some of my tests, but performed softer on corners on about 75% of the images. CA performance on the 16-35 F4 outpaces both of these lenses by a wide margin.
A majority of the photographs I shot on the Sony A7R and my 5D3/6D. On the A7R the files are coming out incredibly clean and sharp. If Canon is ramping their lineup for high-resolution mirrorless sensors this lens proves they are ready for that future lineup today.
The Good- Critically sharp throughout the frame
- Outstanding CA performance - best on any wide-angle zoom I've used
- Great weather-sealing, same as other L-lenses I own
- Great AF - again, same as my other USM lenses
- 2 to 3-stops of real-world IS is useful, and I can see the usefulness for travel and landscape without a tripod - higher F-numbers and lower ISOs with IS than otherwise possible
- Larger and smoother focusing ring than 17-40 - higher threshold for IN FOCUS and OUT OF FOCUS making it faster
- I'm a complete amateur at video too, but in my video tests the IS performed very well, less jittery. Great for handing off to post-processing IS as found in FCPX and other apps
- Uses 77mm thread size
The Bad- Physically larger than 17-40
- Inclusion of IS makes it noticeably heavier than the 17-40
- 1 to 2-stops of light falloff inherent without any UV filter at all. Filters with a frame thickness of 4mm or higher add 1-stop of light falloff, filters with 6mm+ add 2.
- Lens hood extends beyond end of lens when on backwards, so can't use it on conjunction with GND holder like the 17-40. Small thing, but I liked doing this to protect the focusing ring from elements
I wanted to share this image with you based on it's CA and sharpness performance:
Click here for the TIFF:
https://app.box.com/shared/static/cl9z1d2h4flsyju22s9k.tif (206.9MB .TIFF)
Click here for the RAW:
https://app.box.com/shared/static/44iyijt80o6nm72qkozt.arw (35.1MB .ARW)
Click here for the hi-res JPEG:
https://app.box.com/shared/static/7ydhorubh7xe67kmp2b0.jpgOlympic Sunset Sunset - 129s - F18 - ISO 100 - 24mm - Canon 16-35 F4 with A7R
There's very slight CA on the distant ridge lines, but it's consistently well controlled and is much less pronounced than my 14-24 and 17-40
Sharpness detail is excellent on this lens, similar to my 17-40 on center subjects, but with much less CA
Even on corners this thing performs very well, both in terms of sharpness and CA
If you guys have any questions about the lens let me know, I'll do my best to answer them!
Graham
