Anyone shot with the new Canon 16-35?

[Nick]

That took longer than I expected. Hope you got a good price. Looking back at some of my photos with the 2.8, I'm even more impressed with the flare resistance and sharpness of the f4 compared to the f2.8. Here's a good example...

Shooting straight into the midday winter sun with the f2.8. Longer blades, but overall way worse than the above f4 examples.

 

[Dave]

Had my first chance to take the new lens out tonight. Subject wasn't great and I was shooting under darkness. Still, I'm so far happy.

Distant Lightning by ashergrey, on Flickr

Also, I had worried about the different appearance of specular highlights compared to the iconic f/2.8. Not so much any more.

 

[Dave]

Bumping my own thread again. I pushed this lens hard up in the Uintas last weekend.

October Meadow by ashergrey, on Flickr

Shot handheld, 1/25 of a second at f/8 and iso 800. IS was active, providing some extra protection against the low shutter speed.

The corner sharpness at f/8 isn't fantastic here, but it's much better than the f/2.8. Notice the lack of fringing on the bare tree branches in the upper right. I'm finding the Lightroom profile for this lens tends to err on the side of too little CA correction, but it's dialed in easily enough.



Again, not the greatest image but an example of the sunstars capable on the f/4. This was only stopped down to f/16, so you could probably get blades a bit longer by taking the sharpness hit going down to f/22. In general though, the specular highlights on this lens seem to be fatter in my eyes than those of the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L.

My general first impressions are this 16/35 f/4L is a nicer hiking lens than its faster, more expensive brother. I did notice the decreased weight when carrying it in my hand mounted to a Canon 6D. I don't have to reverse the lens hood to get it to fit in my typical camera bag (a Lowepro Toploader AW). I didn't expect myself to really want or use the IS, but I found myself shooting handheld well after sundown when I would have been relegated to the tripod or a much higher iso had I been carrying the f/2.8.

 

[Laura]

I rented a 16-35 f4 for my recent Utah trip. My 24-105 is my go-to lens for 80% of my shots, but here's a comparison between those two:

24-105 1.6 sec exposure:


The upper right corner is really out of focus. I thought I couldn't do anything with this shot, then I found that I had shot this with a 16-35 as well, but an even longer exposure (4 sec):



I want this lens!

 

[Nick]

It is a fine lens indeed. I recently shot a night time lapse from a balcony about 450 feet above the Las Vegas strip. First time doing much dark stuff with the new lens and I thought it did great. I posted it to you tube in 4k Ultra HD so you can really see a ton of detail in there, especially if you're on a big screen. I didn't post this here because it is basically the antithesis of Backcountry Post, but for the sake of this lens thread, I think it's relevant.

Be sure to set it to 4k if you're on a high resolution display!

 

[Dori Coplien]

Wow! All great photos. I had a couple of L lenses that I used with a T3i so I bought a 6D body. I wanted a lighter weight lens for my "walk-around" but couldn't decide which to get. In Oct I found the new Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens, not an L but sounded like what I was looking for so I pre-ordered it. Now I am really wanting the 16-35. Maybe in spring. I really want an every day lens with an f2.xx other than my 50mm. Love my 2 telephoto but neither are a good walk around.

 

[Dave]

A couple more. I really love the edge sharpness. Focusing in low light takes a hit compared to the f/2.8 variant but that's to be expected.

Yacht Club by ashergrey, on Flickr

Hotel McCall by ashergrey, on Flickr

I'm now very interested to see how well the newly-announced Canon 100-400 L II performs when it's released next month. I've been debating on a lightweight 70-200 telephoto or a heavier super telephoto zoom. There are some really interesting third party lenses maxing out in the 400-600mm focal length right now.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

Been tempted lately to pick up this lens. Maybe next year. But I don't plan on getting rid of the 2.8 since I love those sunstars

I haven't used my 2.8 below f11 since I got a 14mm 2.8 lens for night stuff that I like much better.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

Finally got around to picking up this lens today. Looking forward to trying it out!

 

[Nick]

Are you planning to replace your 2.8 with it or keep both?

 

[IntrepidXJ]

Are you planning to replace your 2.8 with it or keep both?

Keeping both at this point.

 

[Dave]

Keeping both at this point.

If you can afford it, that's wise. I miss my f/2.8 sometimes.

 

[IntrepidXJ]

If you can afford it, that's wise. I miss my f/2.8 sometimes.

Besides the sunstars, just curious what you miss about the 2.8?

 

[Dave]

I just have a nagging sense it rendered fine detail a little better. It's probably in my head.

I really like the balance of the f/4 on the body though. While the sun stars aren't as intense, I've been pleased with them overall.

 

[Bigred72]

Bumping this thread. Any more thoughts on this lens? Still a keeper vs the 2.8. I'm ready to upgrade both my camera and lenses and 90% of my shots are landscape and night shots. I was thinking of getting the 16-35 f4 for daylight shots and the Rokinon 14mm for night shots, though I've seen plenty of daytime shots with this lens as well and am very impressed. As far as camera body, it may be a Sony A7R ii.....or Canon 5DM3.....or......

 

[Nick]

I don't regret ditching the f2.8 one bit. And I have the Rokinon and I still end up using the 16-35 f4 for night shots. It does fine.

 

[Dave]

The only times I miss the f2.8 are when shooting sun stars. That lens just can't be beat for that. But considering the tradeoffs, I'd still make the decision to go to the f4.

By giving up a brighter viewfinder and better specular highlights, you're getting a lighter, sharper lens. Both are solid choices, it just depends on what's most important to you.

Edit: And don't get me wrong... the sun stars off the f4 aren't bad by any means.

 

[Bigred72]

Great to hear. I'm about ready to make the purchase. Thanks!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Dave]

Sounds like formal announcement of a 16-35 f/2.8 III is coming next week. I'll be very interested to see how it stacks up with the f/4.

 

[Nick]

Sounds like formal announcement of a 16-35 f/2.8 III is coming next week. I'll be very interested to see how it stacks up with the f/4.

Aww crap. Time to sell another lens??

Kind of unrelated, but I'm starting to get itchy about replacing my body.