Chris

I am in the last thought processing of buying this lens. Can anyone who owns lens this tell me anything bad about the lens? I know some of you will say I should get the 2.8 but for my needs I can't see spending the extra money.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

One of my top favorites, makes having primes in the same focal lengths hard to justify.

Chris

Thanks, it has great reviews. I have a Tokina 18-35 until my husband took it over when he took my older camera. He feels I should stick with the L lenses. Can't argue with the man when he's right lol

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

I've had this lens since around 2014 and consider it to be excellent. What camera body will you be using it on? I used it primarily on my 6D and now my 5DIV, both of which have excellent low-light performance which negates much of the need for the 2.8 version. It's sharp with excellent auto focus and color rendition. It also has excellent stabilization. I had an EF 17-40 L which I don't miss at all in comparison. If it's focal range fits your needs I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.
Here's a review you may find useful:
https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-is.htm

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Although the first two examples are from film (so fixed ISO), I'd rather have the IS and depth of field than f/2.8. As LFingar mentioned, ISO performance on the EOS body can do the rest,

Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker


SBD Dauntless


South Carolina State House

Chris

Thanks for your input. I will be using it mainly on my 5DIII. My 7DII is more for my nature photography and my 100-400L

Jrhoffman75 Loc: Conway, New Hampshire

Excellent lens. If you want f/2.8 for DOF control then there’s no option.

If you are considering f/2.8 for low light capability then f/4 with IS is an alternative at lower price.

Maik723

I bought this lens last year on the day of an office Christmas party. Put that sucker on my 5DMIII, went to the party and took stunning photos in dimly lit rooms,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, without flash. This lens is superb and a must have for indoor photography, with or without flash.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Great lens. I use mine on a full frame Canon, mostly for architectural and landscape images, so no need for f2.8. Many consider the f4 version to be sharper than the f2.8 version also. I have nothing bad to say about it.

Chuckwal Loc: Boynton Beach Florida

one of my best portraits, street photography and wide angle for landscapes and sea scapes
chuck

rydabyk Loc: Florida Panhandle

I love mine, it's a great lens, sharp throughout. I have it on either the 6D or 6D MKII, I shoot mostly landscapes and find it to be exceptional in every way. Can't go wrong buying this lens.

MountainDave

I read a lot of glowing reviews before buying mine but it still exceeded my high expectations. It renders beautiful color. Sharpness compares well with primes. My biggest upside surprise is how well it works taking closeups of wildflowers. I shoot outside mostly using a 77D and 5D IV. I rarely need shallow DOF in this focal range. If I did need more aperture, I'd go for primes over the 2.8 zoom.

Dave

gordone Loc: Red Deer AB Canada

I have the 2.8 version iii and it is absolutely stunning. I would probably recommend the F4 version because of IS, lighter, cheaper, it is supposed to be of similar IQ. The IQ on the one I have is one of the sharpest lenses I have put on my test bench. I mainly use it on my 5DS-R.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I don't yet own it, but I WILL be buying the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS USM when I upgrade my full frame camera in the not-too-distant future.

It's sharp corner-to-corner, well corrected, well made, reasonably priced (as L-series lenses go), moderate size and weight, uses more affordable 77mm filters AND has image stabilization. What's not to love?

Of the Canon ultrawides....

- The EF 17-40mm f/4 has the weakest image quality, but is the cheapest. It's also similar size and weight as the 16-35mm f/4, but doesn't have IS.

- Of the three 16-35mm f/2.8s, only the III is truly sharp corner to corner. It's the best all-around ultrawide FF lens Canon makes, but it also costs $1900 and is rather large and heavy (82mm filters). The earlier two versions of Canon 16-35mm f/2.8s are not as sharp across the entire frame as both the current models (f/2.8 III and f/4 IS).

- The Canon 11-24mm f/4 is amazing... but cannot use standard filters (protruding convex front element). It's also very big, very heavy and very, very expensive.

- Canon 14mm f/2.8 II and TS-E 17mm f/4 are both superb, but are expensive and nowhere near as versatile as a zoom. I would consider the 14mm is I were climbing mountains and wanted as small as possible lens. I will someday purchase the TS-E 17mm for architectural work (already have the 24mm and 45mm TS-E lenses)... when I have a job that requires it and I can build the cost of the lens into the charges! It's rather pricey. It's also manual focus only. Neither of these lenses can be used with standard filters, either.

The 16-35's f/4 aperture is more than adequate for my purposes. I'm usually stopping this type lens down to middle apertures anyway. And the 16-35mm f/4's image quality comes very, very close to that of the best... the 16-35mm f/2.8 III. And the f/4 lens cost is nearly half that of the f/2.8 III. And the 6 or 7 ounce lighter f/4 lens has IS, while the f/2.8 III doesn't. (Note:In my opinion, IS is not terribly important on an ultrawide, which can be hand held at slower shutter speeds pretty easily. It's much more important on telephotos. HOWEVER, it's nice to have IS on any lens and will make possible shots and techniques that simply wouldn't be an option without it.) I also like that I won't have to invest in 82mm filters with the f/4 lens.

You'll find a very informative review of the 16-35mm f/4L here: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

Besides the detailed and thorough review, follow the Image Quality and other links at that site if you want to do head-to-head comparison of it with any of the other Canon lenses or any of a number of the third party alternatives.

catsanddogs

Hi
I have the 2.8 version. I got this for doing stars and such. If I wasn't into that I would have got the 4. Love the lens and hope you have a great time using it.