Just Got My Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM (Page 2): Give us your thoughts on how it compares.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

LFingar wrote:

Just sold my 17-40 and received my 16-35 today. Not a bad day! Just took a couple of quick shots and thought I would post them in case anyone is interested. Shot handheld, wide open at f/4, 16mm, ISO 100. Canon 6D. No in-camera correction. No pp. Hazy, overcast day. IS and AF (single center point) both active.

Give us your thoughts on how it compares.

HowardPepper Loc: Palm Coast, FL

LFingar wrote:

Just sold my 17-40 and received my 16-35 today. Not a bad day! Just took a couple of quick shots and thought I would post them in case anyone is interested. Shot handheld, wide open at f/4, 16mm, ISO 100. Canon 6D. No in-camera correction. No pp. Hazy, overcast day. IS and AF (single center point) both active.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

It's on my G.A.S. list for next year ;)

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

HowardPepper wrote:

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

It's on my G.A.S. list for next year ;)

It's on my G.A.S list for THIS year. :thumbup:

choward_ab Loc: Alberta, Canada

That's a great shot! I'm sold - just have to convince the wife that I need another lens?

Denisedancer Loc: Sydney Australia

TheDman wrote:

Bingo! It's the sharpness. The 17-40 was a bit soft, especially if you were printing large. Canon has never been known for good wide angles, and for years Nikon and even Sigma were beating them in that focal length. This is the first wide-angle zoom that Canon has produced that I would consider top-grade.

Here's one from the recent trip. 18mm, f/11.
http://ddphotos.com/assiniboine.jpg

That's beautiful. What camera do you have?

Denisedancer Loc: Sydney Australia

LFingar wrote:

The 17-40 is certainly a good lens, but the 16-35,... (show quote)

Thank you for that. I use the 18-200 lens most of the time and am unable to achieve such sharpness. Though I suspect at least some of the fault is with my lack of expertise in the best settings to use.

I have the 10-20 and the 50mm but am still learning how best to use them both.

I'd like to get a good walk about lens in a smaller range but am not sure if it would make any difference to the sharpness in my photos.

My camera is a Canon 600D

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

LFingar wrote:

Just sold my 17-40 and received my 16-35 today. Not a bad day! Just took a couple of quick shots and thought I would post them in case anyone is interested. Shot handheld, wide open at f/4, 16mm, ISO 100. Canon 6D. No in-camera correction. No pp. Hazy, overcast day. IS and AF (single center point) both active.

Congratulations; That is really very crisp and sharp. I wonder how that would compare with the 2.8 lII? Anyone have direct feedback?

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

Anandnra wrote:

Congratulations; That is really very crisp and sharp. I wonder how that would compare with the 2.8 lII? Anyone have direct feedback?

This new 16-35 f4L Mkii is supposedly a TAD sharper than the f2.8 Mkii, BUT the f2.8 Mkii is magic for low light... Depends on what you're shooting, landscapes, open night skies, groups of people indoors, or Big Sur at 4:00pm. :D

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

16-35 f/4L Mk-II: $1200
16-35 f/2.8L Mk-II $1700
-
Izzit worth the extra $500 (unless you're a wedding photog?)

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

Merlin1300 wrote:

16-35 f/4L Mk-II: $1200
16-35 f/2.8L Mk-II $1700
-
Izzit worth the extra $500 (unless you're a wedding photog?)

Probably not, unless you need the speed, and depth of field.

TheDman Loc: USA

Denisedancer wrote:

That's beautiful. What camera do you have?

Thanks! That was with the Canon 5D Mk III.

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

lukan wrote:

Probably not, unless you need the speed.

I have the 2.8 LII and I run into distortion around the peripheries wide open on a FF body - I didn't see that in the OP's photographs - hence the question.

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

TheDman wrote:

Thanks! That was with the Canon 5D Mk III.

Dman ... very impressive - where was this shot at?
Sorry OP - not to hijack your thread.

TheDman Loc: USA

Anandnra wrote:

Dman ... very impressive - where was this shot at?
Sorry OP - not to hijack your thread.

Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park, just about the hardest place to get to in the Rockies. No roads in the whole park. You have to hike a very long way in, or take a helicopter. I recommend the latter. :)

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

TheDman wrote:

Mount Assiniboine Provincial Park, just about the hardest place to get to in the Rockies. No roads in the whole park. You have to hike a very long way in, or take a helicopter. I recommend the latter. :)

I was guessing Grand Teton from the back side .... Thanks,