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

After owning the 16-35mm f/2.8 for 5 years and shoots a LOT of landscape and real estate images, I was intrigued by the great reputation this new f/4 lens was getting. I finally pulled teh trigger, sold the 16-35/2.8 and bought this, and the rumors are all true: the image quality on this lens is Canons best-in-class for wide angle zooms to date. The light resolution and sharper corners are noticeably better (I shoot a 5D3) and I am totally thrilled with the decision to go with this lens. The IS works amazingly when shooting candid people shots at 35mm at weddings, etc. At first I was concerned about losing f2.8 simply because I love fast lenses and thought Id never own anything slower than 2.8, but in reality that doesnt matter with such a wide lens on a full frame. F2.8 at 19mm does NOT give you a creamy out-of-focus background, half the room is actually still in focus, lol! Plus, thats what the 50mm/1.2 is for if I need blurred backgrounds. My other concern was that I would be losing a whole stop of light shooting Milky Way images (Ive done a bunch living in Arizona with nice dark deserts), but then I realized that was fin 3-4 years ago and now there are so many amazing MW shots on 500px, whats the point? So back to reality and what it is I shoot, and that is landscapes at f/11-f/14, and real estate at the same aperture, and since I can get the best quality to date from Canon in the super wide zoom category, I pulled the trigger and couldnt be happier. If its image quality youre after, this is it. Ive also bought the version 2 of the 24-70mm and the version 2 of the 70-200mm/2.8 IS and those two were leaps and bounds better in image quality than the version 1 copies, and this 16-35mm falls in that same category: huge leap upward for sharp corners, great resolution, awesome images. Ive posted a 6-exposure sunrise I just took on new years day morning with this lens. Go git it!

Show more

Beautiful and sharp. I bought this lens to do landscapes, real estate and portraits. I couldnt be happier. It is sharp from corner to corner, fast to auto focus, and I love the image stabilization. I dont ever do video, but I put it on my 5D Mark IV and did a little video for a music video behind the scenes shoot, and it was awesome.

Show more

I have owned and used the 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens for several years now. While it is a fantastic lens, I was never thrilled with its performance in the corners for landscapes, which for me was the primary reason for owning the lens. I switched to using the TS-E 17mm f/4L for landscapes and my 16-35mm f/2.8 usually just stayed in my bag - in fact I didnt even bring it along on my last photo trip. Now with the release of this new 16-35mm f/4L IS, my camera bag will always contain an ultra-wide angle zoom lens. I plan on making it my go-to landscape lens, and probably will only use the TS-E 17mm lens when I actually need the tilt or shift. This lens plus a 70-200mm f/4L IS will likely be the only two zoom lenses I carry for photo trips. The image quality is nearly prime like - I see little to no difference in the corners between this lens and the TS-E 17mm (without tilt or shift), even wide-open at f/4. Image quality in the center is fantastic, but the center was never a problem with any of Canons ultra-wide zoom lens. Corner quality in their other ultra-wide zoom lenses have always disappointed, but this lens reverses that trend, delivering excellent image quality across the frame. Photos are sharp and contrasty, in the center and in the corners. If you are familiar with Canons other recently released zoom lenses, such as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or 24-70mm f/2.8L II, you can expect similar results from this lens - fantastic. Like most zoom lenses, there is some distortion at the extreme ends of the range - slight barrel distortion at 16mm and pincushion at 35mm, while there is almost none around 24mm. The amount of distortion appears to be similar to the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. Generally I have not found distortion to be a problem photographing landscapes with the f/2.8 lens, so this lens should perform similarly. Distortion can be fixed in software, but usually comes at the cost of a slight crop along with some loss of image quality. The 16-35mm f/4L IS has a 9-bladed aperture, which will result in 18-point stars from specular highlights (such as the sun) when using narrow apertures. The 16-35mm f/2.8L II has a 7-bladed aperture, which results in 14-point stars. Which is preferred is subjective, but generally I prefer more points on specular highlights. More blades on the aperture also improves bokeh ball look when stopped down, but on such a wide angle lens, only photos at the closest focusing distance have a chance of producing any sort of significant bokeh, and will be even less likely when stopped down. As most of my landscape photos are taken from a tripod, since I often take long exposures or multiple exposures for HDR, the IS will likely not benefit many of my photos. However, I will be glad to have IS when hiking and stopping to take a quick photo. For any single exposures, a tripod will no longer be needed. Build-quality of this lens is typical of most L lenses - excellent. It is very similar in look and feel to the 24-70mm f/2.8L II or 24-70mm f/4L IS. The body is plastic instead of metal, but it has a very solid feel and likely allows the lens to be a little lighter and cheaper vs. using a light metal such as magnesium. Like other recent Canon L lenses, it the hood features a finish that is less likely to show scratches and has a lock to ensure the hood cannot accidentally rotate. The hood on the 16-35mm f/2.8L II was very wide and took up a lot of bag space, so I often found myself leaving it at home. The hood on the 16-35mm f/4L IS is narrower, more like the hood that comes with the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. I predict I will actually be using the hood that comes with this lens. The fluorine coating on the front element will be a welcome addition to those that prefer not to use filters. Water and dirt wipe off much easier compared to lenses without a fluorine coating. I usually carry some Zeiss alcohol wipes to keep my gear clean. Remember that a filter is required to complete the dust and water resistance, so be sure to use a protection filter when using the lens in dusty or moist conditions. Those looking to stop motion, such as event photographers, may still want to buy the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, since IS is not going to replace that f/2.8 aperture. Otherwise the 16-35mm f/4L IS has better image quality, image stabilization, and costs less, so theres little reason to consider the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. The 17-40mm f/4L lens is cheaper than this lens, but lacks IS and also suffers from poor corner performance and vignetting. While the focal lengths are similar, I would also prefer having the extra 1mm at the wide-end (which is significant at wide focal lengths) over the extra 5mm at the tele-end. If you can afford it, buy the 16-35mm f/4L IS. I have long felt that an ultra-wide angle zoom lens that was fantastic for landscapes was missing from Canons lineup of lenses. I am happy to say with the release of this lens, that is no longer the case.

Show more

This is by far one of the sharpest lens Canon has ever produced! Except for the prime lens. It surpasses the 16-35 F2.8 II without a doubt. Im so glad I purchased this lens instead of the F2.8 II. Its now my favorite walk-around lens.

Show more

The 16-35mm focal lengths are some of the most useful zoom ranges available, ideal for architecture, landscapes, street photography, photojournalism, artistic effects, even environmental portraits when used properly. Ive been a photojournalist for over 30 years and replaced my old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1 with the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS. I bought this new f/4 version because, frankly, my old 16-35 isnt very sharp (v. 2 isnt much better), especially at the corners. I shot some comparison tests at f/4 at 16mm, 24mm and 35mm. The new 16-35 f/4 blows the old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1 out of the water and, heres the kicker: sharpness, resolution, color fringing, resistance to flare closely matches my fabulously expensive 24-70 f/2.8L II. Even out of focus highlights appear crisper and better defined. Build quality, handling and external appearance is nearly identical to the 24-70 f/2.8L II. The IS on the new 16-35 f/4 provides exceptional stability for hand-holding under low light conditions. The relatively compact lens hood is less cumbersome than the old design and includes a pinch-style lens cap. Although few will miss it, the new design does not incorporate a gel filter holder on the rear like the old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1. Im a photojournalist and prefer a f/2.8 lens to match my other lenses, but the optics on this new lens are so darn good that Im going to slap that bad boy on one of my 5D III bodies and leave it there. Canon deserves kudos for producing a truly sharp extreme wide angle zoom at a reasonable price. UPDATE: Ive been using this lens for over two years now, including at several dismal low-light assignments. I havent missed the f/2.8 aperture of my 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) at all. No kidding. Ive felt much freer to shoot wide open and the solid IS performance makes most low light work a breeze.

Show more

Before I start, i want to mention that i am by no means a professional and no where near one. I am just a college student who likes to occasionally go out with my buddies and take a few shots of the scenery we stumble upon. First thing i noticed was that the lens does not weigh much, its actually fairly light along with my Canon 6D. Had no problems walking around with it and never felt the need to put it down because of its weight. This lens takes AMAZING photos. Its as simple as that. I usually have it set to auto iso and f/8 and walk around taking pictures of whatever i please. The pictures look amazing. You can go "tweak" them in Lightroom or Photoshop but thats if you want to, its honestly not necessary as this lens already produces great, solid pictures. Daytime photos are also wonderful. Took a few with the sun right above my head and the pictures came out looking great. Took a few in direct sunlight and they also came out looking good. Again, im not a professional, so what may look good to me may not look the same for others. However, i know a good photo when i see one. Overall, Im very satisfied with this lens and happy i bought it as soon as it came out instead of waiting it out and reading reviews about it. Its a great lens and should be in everyones arsenal whether youre a professional or not.

Show more

Comparison between Wide Angle options Sigma 10-20 on a 7D, Canon 17-40 and Canon 16-35 on a MkII. I am a professional Real Estate Photographer, in my first few years of business. Currently shooting 5-10 a week outside of winter. I see all three lenses I own above recommended equally, however not all things are created equal. The sigma model is exactly what you would expect for the price. OK pictures with terrible color and barrel distortion. I am selling. My business really moved up a massive step with the 17-40. It produces professional pictures that are in focus and sell homes. I actually bought the 16-35 by mistake, thinking my 17 was broken, which I later fixed. :) I thought about sending it back, because how much better could it really be. The answer is, a LOT. The pictures are tack sharp and the lens works with very little light, taking the stress off the flash and limiting the flashes and shadows in my pictures. There is minimal barrel distortion, even wide open, which cut my editing time down to virtually nothing. It exposes for windows and backlighting VERY well with no hot spots.A totally backlit house looks great with this lens, though I will swap out the sky. It focuses fast and easily to create flawless images. The color casts are spot on and I did not need to make any adjustments to tones. I dont think I have bothered reviewing just a lens before but I ummed and ahhhed so long over this one, I could have retained so many more clients if I started with proper equipment from the beginning. There is a massive difference. Save up and get this one. Switching my body to a 6D and I should be good to go.

Show more

I have used this lens on a bunch of jobs including a small bathroom and I love this lens. My only complaint is that at 16mm the angle is so wide I have a hard time hiding my lights! The chromatic aberration control is fantastic! the best Ive seen—not that Ive seen every lens for every system—, but this lens is really an interior/landscape photographers dream. The transition between extreme contrast situations like sun beaming through a window is controlled incredibly well. It is a sharp lens and it is sharp all the way to the corners, getting only a little softer in the corners. And the distortion is well controlled as well with some barrel distortion at 16mm and some pin cushion at 35mm, but very reasonable. It has the more standard 77mm diameter which means you can swap filters with your other "L" series lenses. It feels well built, it should be, it is an "L" lens. The hood is awesome too. So much easier and more elegant than other hoods that I have for other "L" lenses, seems like a small thing, but why didnt Canon do this before? I cant explain why I like the button feature on the hood so much, but I do, it just goes on so smoothly and then it locks into place, love it! This lens is a bit expensive compared to some other competitive lenses, but if you care about the things I mention above, paying an extra $400–$500 is well worth it. If youre just getting into wide angle, landscape or interior photography you might want to look at some of the less expensive lenses out there. There are some with a lot of fanfare which I seriously considered, but after using many other wide angle lenses including Canons 14mm prime I settled on this one. There are some primes out there that are better than this lens, but primes should be better, although I didnt love the 14mm as much as I thought I would. I wanted the zoom for that little bit of flexibility that it offers. In interior photography there are only so many places to set up your tripod and gear and being able to zoom in or out just a little is well worth the trade off. Also the fact that you can use filters on a lens this wide is a huge bonus. I like this lens a lot, but its not for everybody. I think that Canon priced this lens fairly, although I would like it better if it was around $900. Im very happy with this lens and would highly recommend it!

Show more

Thought I was losing out getting this lens over the f2.8 version, but I think I gained. What I lost with the f4 I made up for with the IS. Thought the IS would be a waste but Ive found use for it and it does make a difference. Ive used this in very low light hand held and it performed well. Sharp, fast and silent focusing. Used it at an event recently and was surprised I didnt use much of my other lenses all night. A great buy for those who need that range, but dont want to spend as much on the faster version. Youre mind will tell you that youre missing out not having the f2.8 but I got over that real quick once I started using this.

Show more

Sharpest lens I have owned. Too sharp to use in portrait, which makes all the skin flaws to show up. I just it in landscape only. Its even sharper than my 24-70 f2.8 ii. Now my 24-70 is primarily my portrait lens now. In terms of sharpness, out of all the lens I have, 16-35 >sigma 35mm f1.4 >24-70 f2.8 ii>135 f2>70-300 f4-5.6L. I have owned 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8, in terms of sharpness goes, they are eating dust of 16-35. Not to mention the IS. The camera used with these lens: Canon 6D and Sony A7R2.

Show more