Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Graham Clark on September 24, 2014, 06:26:14 pm
-
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/K7n1L1QCjqU (http://youtu.be/K7n1L1QCjqU)
Click 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
(http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Canon-16-35-F4-Review-Hands-On.jpg)
(http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Canon-16-35-F4-Review-vs-17-40.jpg)
(http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Canon-16-35-F4-Review-Focusing.jpg)
(http://www.grahamclarkphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Canon-16-35-F4-Review-with-A7R.jpg)
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 (https://app.box.com/shared/static/cl9z1d2h4flsyju22s9k.tif) (206.9MB .TIFF)
Click here for the RAW: https://app.box.com/shared/static/44iyijt80o6nm72qkozt.arw (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.jpg (https://app.box.com/shared/static/7ydhorubh7xe67kmp2b0.jpg)
Olympic Sunset Sunset - 129s - F18 - ISO 100 - 24mm - Canon 16-35 F4 with A7R
(https://app.box.com/shared/static/1aa1gmfz40sxf176y3cj.jpg)
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
(https://app.box.com/shared/static/ekkfy6p7ro2wu805s7r4.jpg)
Sharpness detail is excellent on this lens, similar to my 17-40 on center subjects, but with much less CA
(https://app.box.com/shared/static/6cmao6ldh723436n2jno.jpg)
Even on corners this thing performs very well, both in terms of sharpness and CA
(https://app.box.com/shared/static/kvmnejfvj67bclflm700.jpg)
If you guys have any questions about the lens let me know, I'll do my best to answer them!
Graham
-
Thanks for the great report! I was curious how the new 16-35 stacked up against my 17-40. I've generally been happy with the latter lens, but not thrilled about the barrel distortion (though correctable in most programs these days). How did you find the new 16-35 performed in this area?
-
Yes, thanks for the info and the photos. Looks like my 17-40 will be sold sooner than later…
-
Looks like a big improvement on previous Canon super wide zooms.
I always found the 2.8's useful lens for events, but disappointing in the corners for technical shots.
Thanks for the comparison.
-
Nice image!
Cheers,
Bernard