Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L Review

Hi, I'm Darren Miles, photographer and resident here in beautiful, sunny Naples, Florida. Canon has introduced another wide-angle lens, this one of the L variety, with the new 16-35 ISL F4 lens which, relatively speaking, is good value for money compared to similar in-house options from Canon and Nikon with its slightly F4 aperture. narrower, but with the addition of image stabilization and some innovative aspects to image quality, the new 1635 F4 is worth its $1,199 price tag. Well, we're going to spend the next 10 to 12 minutes figuring that out, so first up is the quality of the bill. There is now no doubt that this is an L lens as it is built very similar to the newer L lenses that Canon has released.

That is, it is a combination of high-quality and well-assembled plastics that make up most of the outer casing and there is some metal, for example, the lens mount is made of metal, but the filter threads, on the other hand , they are made of plastic and that the diameter of that front element is 77 mm and now it comes in 1B 4 oz, from 16 to 35 it is on the lighter side so it is clear that a wide angle lens is not light, it is simply lighter than the f2.8 offerings that dominate the market, the F4. The aperture means there will be less glass inside, making the lens lighter, which is good if you're going to be shooting all day.

Inside there are 16 elements arranged in 12 groups and there are nine rounded lenses. blades for nice out-of-focus rendering, which for the record on a wide angle lens is not necessarily a top priority as it usually is, as you're usually trying to get everything in sharp focus even at your wide aperture like F4, so it's good to have boka quality but it won't be a deal breaker now that the lens is not weather sealed but interestingly Canon says that when using an optional 77mm protective filter the lens realizes it is dust resistant and to water for use. When testing ambient conditions it's something of a mixed bag as it's only partially reassuring on the last note, unlike many of the other Ultra Wides on the market, specifically from Nikon and Tokina, the 16 to 35 doesn't have an element bulbous front, which means you can use traditional screw-on filters which have the potential to save a lot of money, even if you need one to realize the climate ceiling.

Now the focus in my hand is pretty well damped with just a little bit of friction, the focus ring is really smooth, well damped and for me offers just the right amount of resistance, it has a nice quality feel, finally the aperture ranges from a constant F4 throughout the zoom range up to F22 also throughout the zoom range. I wish the materials with which it was made like this was made of a stronger material than plastic and I also wish it was sealed by WEA in the box on the positive side, at least you can remedy one of those two things, but in the end, to build, the 16 35 F4 gets a very solid N9. out of 10, so next up is autofocus speed and accuracy.

If you look at my other

review

s you'll probably notice that when it comes to wide angle photography and wide angle lenses, to me anyway the AF speed seems kind of boka. Rendering typically isn't a top priority because when you're shooting at f8, F9, or F10, the goal is a wide depth of field, so focus speed isn't going to be a big consideration because you're generally shooting. still subjects and trying to focus on them all, that being said, the 16 to 35 is equipped with a ring type ultrasonic motor for fast and completely silent focusing and let me tell you, it is fast, but if I am shooting still subjects, are there any?

The real benefit of being able to focus in less than a fraction of a second, well not really, however I'm sure there are cases where fast focusing and wide angle lenses are n, but even with a focus motor slower, like say the tokina, the elements inside do not need to move much and the focus will be captured quite quickly. Speaking for myself, I normally shoot interiors so I haven't had a chance to take advantage of fast-moving subjects with this lens, but my experience with the 16-35 focus has been near perfect and again it's very fast if you need it to For example, an occasional action shot, the 16 to 35 captures and locks focus with absolute certainty, so there's really nothing to criticize here, so in terms of AF speed and accuracy the 16 to 35 gets a perfect 10 out of 10, so the next thing is the optical quality and the quality of the results.

I now photograph between 15 and 40 houses a week and pay close attention to certain details when photographing wide angle. How is Edge performance? How does the lens keep flare and chromatic aberration under control in high contrast areas like around the edges of window frames? Well, I'm happy to report that in those three areas the 16 to35 manages them all with a bang. In fact, what's arguably most impressive about the 16 to35 F4 is, in fact, its bright light performance. I would go so far as to say that the optical performance is groundbreaking specifically for a wide angle lens, for example the chromatic aberration performance is particularly impressive as in my experience so far it is basically irrelevant, there is no such haze in the transition areas either. around windows, specifically in dark rooms which require a long shutter speed to expose them correctly in those situations where you are normally turning the windows out and it often causes a mess full of hazy chromatic aberration in a transition from bright to dark area, For example, as much as I like the Tokina 16 to 28 f2.8 and do so with difficulty like most wide angle lenses in the high contrast transition areas, by contrast, the 16 to 35 handles transitions surprisingly well.

Additionally, the addition of image stabilization has some added value if, for example, you don't shoot with a handheld remote, as it will compensate for any camera shake when you press the shutter, which is important. in low light situations that require a long shutter speed, but overall I am very satisfied with the results from 16 to 35; however, as with all my

review

s, it's one thing to tell you about the optical quality and another thing to demonstrate the optical quality of the The next minute or two will be a series of stills and K Clips video kits showing off the optical goodness. of the Canon ef6 to35 F4 ISL and are certainly worthy of the Canon L designation as this lens is optically impressive.

Oh, the last one is the only one that sticks. Point with the 16 to 35 and that's the value because at $1,199 this lens is by no means cheap, but it is relatively inexpensive compared to the original Canon and Nikom options. You give up the f2.8 aperture compared to those lenses, but the gain is and the focusing motor is much faster than third-party options like, for example, Tokina. Compared to the Canon 16 to 35 L f2.8, there is a $500 price difference in favor of the F4, so you're basically paying a premium for a similar lens. With better low-light performance now, compared to third-party options like Tokyo's 16 to 28 f2.8, you get image stabilization and much better flare and chromatic aberration performance, but again you lose that f2.8 aperture and the tokina costs $560 less.

In addition to this, its optical performance is similar again except for the chromatic aberration performance and honestly the tokina produces a little more haze and high contrast situations or in situations where you shoot in direct sunlight, which which, frankly, can be very difficult to handle in post-production. processing gains, so in my opinion I think the 16-35 is worth more than the toena, assuming that like most architectural and landscape photographers you are shooting at f8 and generally don't need the extra light pass into your photograph, however, if you are a wedding photographer using wide angle lenses, then the f2.8 aperture may be useful in a church or somewhere else.

The other option is the Canon 17 to 40 F4. Now I haven't used that lens, but the answer is it is optically very good and a great value, but you lose 1mm at the wide end, which doesn't seem like much. 1mm, but 1mm at the wide end is a more significant percentage than just 1 millimeter would indicate you lose image stabilization as well, but keep in mind that the 17 to 40 is only $839 or $360 less than this, so which really comes down to what you will use it for in my line of work in real estate photography. There is a lot of value in the 16 to 35 F4. now i just wish it was just a little more expensive than competent third party options like tokino's 16 to 28 and given the price difference between this and the 17 to 40 F4, $1,199 seems like a healthy premium for a lens, definitely is better. in some optical areas critical for wide angle photography, but I don't think they are twice as good, but that said, if you need the best in image quality then it's up to you whether the 16 to 35 range is worth it. for me, in my line of work, it's so for Value, the 16 to 35 gets a very solid 8 and a medium 1 out of 10, okay, time to draw some conclusions about the Canon 16 to

35mm

F4 lens is L, so here goes.

The quality of the workmanship is quite good, it is made of a well-assembled combination of metal and plastic, although the housing is mainly made of plastic, it is a good quality plastic, but it is still plastic, the focus and zoom rings are coated rubber and are well moistened in my hand. They offer an ideal amount of strength, the zoom ring offers a little more strength, and they meet L quality expectations. Now the lens is not weather sealed, but a simple UV filter makes the lens weather resistant. and to the dust. It's quite heavy, weighing 1PB 4o, but it's much lighter than the f2.8 offerings on the market, so overall its build is pretty solid and we gave it a nine out of 9 autofocus speed and accuracy. 10.

Now, in my opinion, there aren't too many situations that require ultra-fast focusing when shooting with an ultra-wide angle lens, but the USM motor that is included with the 16 to 35 is very fast and perfectly accurate when you need it to that occasional action shot. I really don't. It's not for most of what I do, but there's nothing to criticize here anyway, so for AF speed and accuracy, the 16 to 35 range gets a perfect 10 out of 10 optical quality and the quality of the results again in my line of work with Ultra wide angle lenses in real estate photography, specifically the 16 to 35, shines as it offers excellent edgo edge sharpness and does a really excellent job of handling many of the errors that They usually accompany wide angle lenses, specifically the chromatic aberration is almost non-existent, so for me it is really impressive, there is also not much haze in those same transition areas, such as around the windows for interior shots and flare when you shoot towards the Sol, for example, in my experience, is extremely well controlled now just for the record.

I read a review. I believe it was Lens Tip.com who stated that the lens' performance against bright light was poor. Now I am not experiencing the type of flare patterns they have shown on their website with this lens, which may indicate some variation in production. This lens, but I base my rating on the lens I have, so in terms of optical quality and quality of results, we gave the 16 to 35 F4 a 10 out of 10 for both values. For me it's about the only sticking point with the 16. at 35 F4 don't get me wrong this is a great lens, it really is a great lens with some innovative improvements in some very critical areas in optical quality, specifically again for great lenses Angular, it's just that there is a lot of competent competition for a lot less. money which frankly you just have to look and consider the alternatives on the market now which say that if you are like me and shoot a lot of space, things like flare and chromatic aberration are important and the barrel is definitely better than the chromatic aberration The lesser-priced and excellent tokina 16 to 28 f2.8 can ruin a shot even when corrected in Photoshop and Lightroom.

The other disadvantage of 16 to 35 is that you lose a step of light at a higher speed. The price, so the plus side is that you get $1,199, just as good as the 16 to the 35. You better really need the difference in image quality to justify it, so for Value we gave it the 16 out of 35 and an 82 out of 10 overall gets a 475 out of 50 and our highly recommended rating, the final word being that the 16 to 35 is just the latest in a series of truly excellent high-quality professional lenses released by Canon. It's a highly competent lens that does a wonderful job of taking advantage of problem areas where other Ultra Wide Angle lenses tend to struggle to get that right angle, however.incremental improvement in performance.

It costs almost twice as much as the really excellent and arguably better built tokina 16 or 28 f2.8. If you haven't seen my review about it, be sure to check it out. In the end, it's up to you to decide if the improvement and optical performance are worth it to me. I really like the F4 16 to 35. I just wish it was priced a little lower, but honestly I'd probably be willing to bite. the bullet and pay to get the difference in that ad for that ad Improved high contrast areas around the windows for my interior shots my clients will appreciate the difference, at least I think they will appreciate the difference.

This is Darren Miles with Darren Miles photography. based here in beautiful and sunny Naples, Florida, if you like these reviews, don't forget to subscribe, thanks so much for watching and until next time, happy session.