Canon 16-35 F4 Review vs. 17-40 Shootout

[grahamclarkphoto]

Hey guys,

As an amateur landscape photographer I was excited to get my hands on one of the first copies of the 16-35 F4. I've been collecting image results ever since, and I recently wrote a Canon 16-35 F4 Review and uploaded 35.7GB of images captured with the 16-35 F4, mainly landscape and travel photographs, with quite a few optical performance tests side-by-side's with the 17-40.

Watch the video review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMOHrtFp2ko
Click here to read the full review: Canon 16-35 F4 Review vs. 17-40 Shootout - | Graham Clark Photography (35.7GB of RAW/TIFF files)

As a Nikon 14-24 and Canon 17-40 shooter I like that this lens has IS, but if there was a non-IS version I'd get that one. It has less CA than both the 14-24 and the 17-40, based on my copies. It's also sharper than both at the corners, but performs similar on center sharpness. Interestingly enough the 17-40 actually resolved sharper on center sharpness on some of my tests, but performed softer on corners on about 75% of the images. CA performance on the 16-35 F4 outpaces both of these lenses by a wide margin.

A majority of the photographs I shot on the Sony A7R and my 5D3/6D. On the A7R the files are coming out incredibly clean and sharp. If Canon is ramping their lineup for high-resolution mirrorless sensors this lens proves they are ready for that future lineup today.

The Good

• Critically sharp throughout the frame
• Outstanding CA performance - best on any wide-angle zoom I've used
• Great weather-sealing, same as other L-lenses I own
• Great AF - again, same as my other USM lenses
• 2 to 3-stops of real-world IS is useful, and I can see the usefulness for travel and landscape without a tripod - higher F-numbers and lower ISOs with IS than otherwise possible
• Larger and smoother focusing ring than 17-40 - higher threshold for IN FOCUS and OUT OF FOCUS making it faster
• I'm a complete amateur at video too, but in my video tests the IS performed very well, less jittery. Great for handing off to post-processing IS as found in FCPX and other apps
• Uses 77mm thread size

The Bad

• Physically larger than 17-40
• Inclusion of IS makes it noticeably heavier than the 17-40
• 1 to 2-stops of light falloff inherent without any UV filter at all. Filters with a frame thickness of 4mm or higher add 1-stop of light falloff, filters with 6mm+ add 2.
• Lens hood extends beyond end of lens when on backwards, so can't use it on conjunction with GND holder like the 17-40. Small thing, but I liked doing this to protect the focusing ring from elements

 

[nicholaskong]

I just acquired the 16-35mm f4 to replace my 16-35mm f2.8L II and definitely no regrets at all. It's much sharper compare to the f2.8

 

[snerd]

It was reviews and comments like these that swayed me to get the f/4 over the 2.8 II version. My 24-70 was just too long in a lot of situations. It should be here Wednesday.



...............