The Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens gives users a sharp lens optimized for digital and image stabilization, so that might be enough for some to upgrade. I’d certainly do that if I had a 17-40mm f/4L, but would this new 16-35mm make me want to sell my 16-35mm f/2.8? I’ve owned the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens for quite some time and I’ve always loved it. Not only was I pleased with the wide angle reach, I was always impressed with the in-camera color/contrast I got from this lens over any of my other lenses. While it wasn’t the sharpest lens I ever owned, it was plenty sharp enough and never let me down. However, all of Canon’s new L lenses that they’ve released since the 200mm f/2L was released have been razor sharp, so I had very high expectations about the quality of this lens. Hands On ObservationsPhysically the biggest differences between the the newer f/4 and older 2.8 are the smaller filter size (77mm instead of 82mm for the 2.8) and a slightly less bulge at the end of the lens. Beyond that they are physically very similar. The addition of IS on the f/4 is nice, but wide angle lenses rarely suffer from camera shake so unless you are dropping below 1/35 sec at 35mm or 1/16 sec at 16mm this isn’t going to be a super important feature. As a result, the addition of IS seems to be more motivated by marketing than necessity, but it’s nice to have there for slower handheld exposures. In my testing it worked fine both handheld and on at tripod for long exposures, so all is well. However, I can’t recall ever having a single shot with my old 2.8 that was blurry due to camera shake. I did notice that the magical warm bias that was prevalent in the f/2.8 is gone from the f/4, so I’d describe this newer model as having a more neutral to cool color bias. RAW only shooters aren’t going to be impacted by this much, but those pros who count on getting things right in camera will have to spend a little time setting their white balance to match the warm magic of the old f/2.8. Sharpness-wise, there’s no doubt that the new f/4 is super sharp when you pixel peep with test charts. In real world testing the sharpness at the edges of the frame when wide open on the older f/2.8 lens seems sharper at 16mm and softer at 35mm. Ironically, the inverse is the case for the f/4 which seems to be sharper in the center of the frame but softer at the edges at 16mm than the f/2.8, yet much better than the f/2.8 lens at 35mm. At f/11 both felt pretty evenly matched at the center, so my conclusion is that YES the new f/4 is sharper but not significantly enough to make it super obvious in real world usage. Unedited Sample SnapshotsThe following snapshots were taken during a casual walk with my family of 5 where I had a few seconds to snap some shots with this lens before I had to go back to being dad. What’s shown here are completely unedited in-camera JPEG’s (without in-camera peripheral illumination and distortion correction). These were all taken with a Canon 5D Mark III using the 16-35mm f/4L IS USM only.  Visit http://photos.ronmartblog.com/lens/canon/16-35mmf4l for more sample photos. BookshelfWhen placed on a tripod with mirror lockup and a timer release some of the real world observations I’ve previously made are more apparent. You can see a full gallery of bookshelf images to compare at http://photos.ronmartblog.com/lens/canon/16-35mm28vs4. However, I’ve pulled a couple aside here to discuss. Click the images to see the full-size unedited in-camera JPEG. The lenses were so close in size that I didn’t have to move the camera when switching lenses. Click the image above to see the full size version of the f/4 shown on the left below. Click the image below to see the full size version of the f/2.8 shown on the right above. Feel free to download all of the bookshelf comparison images at http://photos.ronmartblog.com/lens/canon/16-35mm28vs4 for your pixel peeping pleasure, but please delete them when you are done viewing. ConclusionIf I was a 17-40mm f/4L owner I’d probably upgrade to this lens because I’ve always preferred the 16-35mm range over the 17-40mm range. More importantly though, the 17-40 is a great lens, but it’s not a razor sharp lens like the new 16-35mm f/4L IS, so it’s certainly going to be a compelling option. In this article I focused more on the 16-35mm f/2.8L II vs the new f/4 because that’s the audience that will have a harder time deciding if they give up f/2.8 for a sharper f/4 version with IS. For me the answer will be no, simply because I prefer the color I get from the 2.8 and the sharpness difference isn’t enough to warrant a change. If I were buying my first wide angle zoom then I’d definitely go for the new 16-35mm f/4L IS over the more expensive yet softer 16-35mm f/2.8L. Where to orderClick here to learn more or order the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens on the B&H web site. Click here to learn more or order the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Lens. Other articles you may enjoyIf you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy these:
DisclosureIf you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this. NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies. If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated! This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site. |
