Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

    I wanted a wide zoom for the 5D3 to compliment my 24-105 so have recently been pestering those nice people at Mifsud in Brixham who kindly let me 'road test' two likely candidates that they had used examples of: 17-40 f4 and 16-35 f2.8 II.

    I shot a range of images at different apertures and focal lengths and closely inspected the corners where, if there is going to be any lack of sharpness, that is where it would be. It came as a real surprise that they both fell well below expectations.

    I had read that the 16-35 f4 was sharper and that IS made up for any benefit lost to the 2.8. Sadly, Misfud didn't have a used example for me to play with but were generous enough to offer me a new one at their usual used price and, as this would be further reduced by Canon's current cash-back, it was placed well within my budget so, today, the deal was done.

    The adage I use is: "the pleasure of ownership outlasts the pain or purchase" and, although I have been exposing myself to some "pain of purchase" lately, I think my new 16-35 f4IS is going to give a lot of pleasure.

    I drove straight to Kingswear and took a range of test shots and here is a couple that fully justifies the faith I placed in reviews and demonstrates the sharpness of this lens:

    5D3_4874-Edit by John Leah, on Flickr

    Not the most interesting shot (incidentally it is a five-image HDR) but just inspect the corner detail:

    5D3_4874-Edit-2 by John Leah, on Flickr

    Well, I think it's good

    Cheers,
    John

    #2
    Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

    Agree with you John and each time I use my 16-35 f4 IS on my 5D3 I ask myself why I do not use it more often.
    I head out with it in my bag and have the 24-105 on the 5D3 and finish up being lazy and just use the 24-105.
    I must go out in future with just the 16-35 and then I will have to use it.
    Wait till you use it inside a building... a stunning lens
    David

    Comment


      #3
      Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

      Thanks David As a benchmark I subjected my 24-105 to the same tests as the other lenses (at equivalent focal lengths) and was disappointed to find that at 24mm it's not that great either. Still the best walk around lens for a FF though.

      I do have some interior shoots coming up so something to look forward to

      Cheers,
      John

      Comment


        #4
        Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

        My 16-35 F/4 near enough never leaves my 6D. I was lucky enough to be able to take both the F/2.8 and the F/4 out on a test in the field so I could better compare the two lens..The odd occasion it comes off, then its the good old workhorse 24-105 that goes on. That lens never lets me down
        Andy

        EOS 6D | 16-35 F/4 | 24-105mm f4L | 50mm F1.8 | Canon 70-200 F2.8 MKII
        Flickr Page
        Facebook Page

        Comment


          #5
          Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

          Thanks Andy, I think this one will be staying on a lot of the time too

          Cheers,
          John

          Comment


            #6
            Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

            agree its a great lens and its nice to put a lens on that doesn't weigh a ton as well !! - offers good balance on the 5D
            :- Ian

            5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)

            :- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/

            Comment


              #7
              Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

              I must differ on the praises heaped on the 16-35mm lens. I regularly use the so called marmite lens-the 17-40mm Canon lens and I find that it is bitingly so sharp. It is also much cheaper than the 16-35mm f4 IS lens. Take a look at my photos taken with the marmite lens last Saturday- Peoples thread- an afternoon of early music. These were taken without flash (except the group photo) and I will certainly NOT part with my marmite lens.
              Canon 6D; Canon 760D;Canon G15;Canon 40mm f2.8(Pancake);Canon 50mm f1.8(ii); Canon 17mm-40mm f4L;Canon EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM;Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 STM lens;Canon 24mm-105mmf4L IS;Canon 70-300mm f4-f5.6 L IS USM;Kenko 1.4x HD TC;Canon 430EX ii flash;Giottos tripod;Manfretto monopod;Cokin P filters + bits and pieces!

              www.flickr.com/photos/nathaniel3390

              North Wales where music and the sea give a great concert!

              Comment


                #8
                Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

                that used to be the case with me, now sadly it doesn't come out often and I'm only holding onto it just in case I need to use a ND filter
                :- Ian

                5D Mk III, 24-105 / 70-200 f2.8 L / 100-400 Mk II / 100 macro / 16-35 L / 11-24 L / 1.4 & 2x converters and a bad back carrying it all ;o)

                :- https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotosespana/

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

                  That's fine Nat as what's most important in our hobby is that we enjoy what we do and are happy with the results we obtain

                  Cheers,
                  John

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

                    Originally posted by ColytonJohn View Post
                    That's fine Nat as what's most important in our hobby is that we enjoy what we do and are happy with the results we obtain

                    Cheers,
                    John
                    Fully agree with you John.
                    Canon 6D; Canon 760D;Canon G15;Canon 40mm f2.8(Pancake);Canon 50mm f1.8(ii); Canon 17mm-40mm f4L;Canon EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM;Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 STM lens;Canon 24mm-105mmf4L IS;Canon 70-300mm f4-f5.6 L IS USM;Kenko 1.4x HD TC;Canon 430EX ii flash;Giottos tripod;Manfretto monopod;Cokin P filters + bits and pieces!

                    www.flickr.com/photos/nathaniel3390

                    North Wales where music and the sea give a great concert!

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

                      Test reviews suggest that the 17 - 40 has (or had?) quality control issues, with some samples being badly centred, so that some of the sides/corners of images were much less sharp than others. Quite a few people reported sending back several until they eventually got a good sample. So it may be a matter of pot luck, those that got a good sample are very happy, those that got a poor one aren't. It's one reason I wouldn't consider a used copy, it might be one of those that the previous owner didn't think much of.

                      The 16 - 35 F4 is rarely available used, which indicates the owners are generally very happy with it. On auction sites when it is available there is usually very strong competition, with a high final price. I looked at a used copy on the web site of one of the well-known dealers, took 5 minutes only to think about it, went back to buy to discover it had just been sold....

                      The two most popular and widely used Canon lenses, the 17 - 40 and 24 - 105 F4s both come out fairly poorly in lab tests, but there are obviously many happy owners. That suggests to me that perceived weaknesses in lab tests are not generally significant in real world situations, or that there are variations between individual lenses.
                      EOS 6D, 6D Mk II, 80D, 70D, 100D, 200D, M50, M100. Canon 10-18, 18 - 55, 55 - 250 IS STM lenses, Canon 16 - 35 mm F4L, 35 mm EF-S macro, 50 mm F1.8 STM, 60 mm EF-S macro, MPE-65 macro, 85 mm F1.8, 200 mm F2.8 L II, M 15 - 45 mm, M 22mm F2, M 32mm F1.4. Sigma 24 - 35 F2 Art, 135 mm F1.8 Art, 17 - 50 F2.8 DC, 105 mm OS macro, 100 - 400 C, 150 - 600 C.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

                        "The two most popular and widely used Canon lenses, the 17 - 40 and 24 - 105 F4s both come out fairly poorly in lab tests, but there are obviously many happy owners. That suggests to me that perceived weaknesses in lab tests are not generally significant in real world situations, or that there are variations between individual lenses.[/QUOTE]"

                        I am actually very happy with both my 17-40mm and 24-105mm lenses as the IQ is very sharp and yields excellent results. So I won't be in a hurry to upgrade or change either of these two lenses.
                        Canon 6D; Canon 760D;Canon G15;Canon 40mm f2.8(Pancake);Canon 50mm f1.8(ii); Canon 17mm-40mm f4L;Canon EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM;Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 STM lens;Canon 24mm-105mmf4L IS;Canon 70-300mm f4-f5.6 L IS USM;Kenko 1.4x HD TC;Canon 430EX ii flash;Giottos tripod;Manfretto monopod;Cokin P filters + bits and pieces!

                        www.flickr.com/photos/nathaniel3390

                        North Wales where music and the sea give a great concert!

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

                          the 17 - 40 and 24 - 105 F4s both come out fairly poorly in lab tests, but there are obviously many happy owners. That suggests to me that perceived weaknesses in lab tests are not generally significant in real world situations, or that there are variations between individual lenses.
                          Agree Richard

                          I have both the 16-35 & 24-105 but the 24-105 is my go to lens 99% of the time, my 16-35 is just collecting dust sat in a draw since i purchased it's just a focal range i don't really use or make the most of in my line of photo work.
                          With the naked eye i wouldn't say one was sharper than the other they both deliver great results

                          Paul
                          EOS 1Dx, - EF 24-105L f4,- Sigma 135 f1.8 Art - EF 400L IS f2.8, - Speedlite 430EXII.
                          Freelance Sports Photographer for local Press - https://twitter.com/P_linton99

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

                            I actually used the 17-40 mm lens at f4 throughout and I wonder whether any member can spot any problem with the images on my post "an afternoon of early music- Ensemble 1677 in the "people's" thread. I also used the lens without flash (except for the group photo). The images are very sharp at f4.
                            Canon 6D; Canon 760D;Canon G15;Canon 40mm f2.8(Pancake);Canon 50mm f1.8(ii); Canon 17mm-40mm f4L;Canon EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM;Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 STM lens;Canon 24mm-105mmf4L IS;Canon 70-300mm f4-f5.6 L IS USM;Kenko 1.4x HD TC;Canon 430EX ii flash;Giottos tripod;Manfretto monopod;Cokin P filters + bits and pieces!

                            www.flickr.com/photos/nathaniel3390

                            North Wales where music and the sea give a great concert!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: 16-35 f4 IS - So sharp you could cut yourself!

                              Nat, you're coming over all defensive but there really is no need As has been said there are reports of some 17-40s being less good than others (seemingly true of almost anything we buy these days). You obviously have one of the good ones and, had that been the sample I tested at Mifsud's, I'd have bought it in place of the 16-35 and saved myself over four hundred quid

                              I could upload some corner crops of the test shots I took but that would only prove that particular lens was a poor example. Peeping into the corners of your shots all seems fine.

                              An uncharitable thought has just occurred...
                              I wonder how many far more expensive lenses do Mifsud sell on the back of that lenses poor performance I joke, of course; Mifsud is a fine shop

                              Cheers,
                              John

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X