Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L is USM Lens - 9518B002, Black

I have owned and used the 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens for several years now. While it is a fantastic lens, I was never thrilled with its performance in the corners for landscapes, which for me was the primary reason for owning the lens. I switched to using the TS-E 17mm f/4L for landscapes and my 16-35mm f/2.8 usually just stayed in my bag - in fact I didn't even bring it along on my last photo trip. Now with the release of this new 16-35mm f/4L IS, my camera bag will always contain an ultra-wide angle zoom lens. I plan on making it my go-to landscape lens, and probably will only use the TS-E 17mm lens when I actually need the tilt or shift. This lens plus a 70-200mm f/4L IS will likely be the only two zoom lenses I carry for photo trips. The image quality is nearly prime like - I see little to no difference in the corners between this lens and the TS-E 17mm (without tilt or shift), even wide-open at f/4. Image quality in the center is fantastic, but the center was never a problem with any of Canon's ultra-wide zoom lens. Corner quality in their other ultra-wide zoom lenses have always disappointed, but this lens reverses that trend, delivering excellent image quality across the frame. Photos are sharp and contrasty, in the center and in the corners. If you are familiar with Canon's other recently released zoom lenses, such as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II or 24-70mm f/2.8L II, you can expect similar results from this lens - fantastic. Like most zoom lenses, there is some distortion at the extreme ends of the range - slight barrel distortion at 16mm and pincushion at 35mm, while there is almost none around 24mm. The amount of distortion appears to be similar to the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. Generally I have not found distortion to be a problem photographing landscapes with the f/2.8 lens, so this lens should perform similarly. Distortion can be fixed in software, but usually comes at the cost of a slight crop along with some loss of image quality. The 16-35mm f/4L IS has a 9-bladed aperture, which will result in 18-point stars from specular highlights (such as the sun) when using narrow apertures. The 16-35mm f/2.8L II has a 7-bladed aperture, which results in 14-point stars. Which is preferred is subjective, but generally I prefer more points on specular highlights. More blades on the aperture also improves bokeh ball look when stopped down, but on such a wide angle lens, only photos at the closest focusing distance have a chance of producing any sort of significant bokeh, and will be even less likely when stopped down. As most of my landscape photos are taken from a tripod, since I often take long exposures or multiple exposures for HDR, the IS will likely not benefit many of my photos. However, I will be glad to have IS when hiking and stopping to take a quick photo. For any single exposures, a tripod will no longer be needed. Build-quality of this lens is typical of most L lenses - excellent. It is very similar in look and feel to the 24-70mm f/2.8L II or 24-70mm f/4L IS. The body is plastic instead of metal, but it has a very solid feel and likely allows the lens to be a little lighter and cheaper vs. using a light metal such as magnesium. Like other recent Canon L lenses, it the hood features a finish that is less likely to show scratches and has a lock to ensure the hood cannot accidentally rotate. The hood on the 16-35mm f/2.8L II was very wide and took up a lot of bag space, so I often found myself leaving it at home. The hood on the 16-35mm f/4L IS is narrower, more like the hood that comes with the 24-70mm f/2.8L II. I predict I will actually be using the hood that comes with this lens. The fluorine coating on the front element will be a welcome addition to those that prefer not to use filters. Water and dirt wipe off much easier compared to lenses without a fluorine coating. I usually carry some Zeiss alcohol wipes to keep my gear clean. Remember that a filter is required to complete the dust and water resistance, so be sure to use a protection filter when using the lens in dusty or moist conditions. Those looking to stop motion, such as event photographers, may still want to buy the 16-35mm f/2.8L II, since IS is not going to replace that f/2.8 aperture. Otherwise the 16-35mm f/4L IS has better image quality, image stabilization, and costs less, so there's little reason to consider the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. The 17-40mm f/4L lens is cheaper than this lens, but lacks IS and also suffers from poor corner performance and vignetting. While the focal lengths are similar, I would also prefer having the extra 1mm at the wide-end (which is significant at wide focal lengths) over the extra 5mm at the tele-end. If you can afford it, buy the 16-35mm f/4L IS. I have long felt that an ultra-wide angle zoom lens that was fantastic for landscapes was missing from Canon's lineup of lenses. I am happy to say with the release of this lens, that is no longer the case.

Wow. I've been a canon shooter for years. I have resisted purchasing a wide angle lens for a couple of reasons.... First, portrait photography is my specialty so a wide angle would be a rarely used luxury, and Second, the cost of that luxury has been prohibitive until now. Enter the 16-35 f4. I read the reviews, comparing it so favorably to the 16-35 2.8II which sells for significantly more, and decided to take the plunge. I have it paired with a 5DIII and 5DII (both full frame cameras) and all I can say is WOW. The images are tack sharp with good color and much less distortion than I would expect from this much of a wide angle lens. I was trying to think of a reason why f4 wouldn't be good enough for me on a wide angle lens and honestly I couldn't come up with one. Its fine. It doesn't feel at all like a compromise from its 16-35 f2.8II sibling. I can't think of anything more I would want from a wide angle. There are already plenty of reviews here that go into some excellent technical detail so I wont repeat those details here (I could'nt even if I wanted to -- I am not much of a technical wizard) but I will just reiterate that this lens would make an outstanding wide angle addition to your lens arsenal. I am sure it does a fine job on the cropped sensor cameras as well. For me I am thrilled to find an affordable, gorgeous, technically almost perfect lens that pairs with my full frame camera bodies. I am a part time professional photographer if that helps establish any credibility?

Before I start, i want to mention that i am by no means a professional and no where near one. I am just a college student who likes to occasionally go out with my buddies and take a few shots of the scenery we stumble upon. First thing i noticed was that the lens does not weigh much, it's actually fairly light along with my Canon 6D. Had no problems walking around with it and never felt the need to put it down because of its weight. This lens takes AMAZING photos. It's as simple as that. I usually have it set to auto iso and f/8 and walk around taking pictures of whatever i please. The pictures look amazing. You can go "tweak" them in Lightroom or Photoshop but that's if you want to, it's honestly not necessary as this lens already produces great, solid pictures. Daytime photos are also wonderful. Took a few with the sun right above my head and the pictures came out looking great. Took a few in direct sunlight and they also came out looking good. Again, im not a professional, so what may look good to me may not look the same for others. However, i know a good photo when i see one. Overall, I'm very satisfied with this lens and happy i bought it as soon as it came out instead of waiting it out and reading reviews about it. It's a great lens and should be in everyone's arsenal whether you're a professional or not.

I love this Lens, although I have only had it for about a month, it has only product great pictures for me. Although I love taking pictures and have been doing so for years, I consider myself an amateur. I generally do not use post processing photograph and decide whether I took a good photograph based on how it look to my naked eye. I've learned the technical aspects of photography so that I can properly use my camera and lenses; but when it comes down to pictures, I generally don't care about the technical aspects of photography such as chromatic Aberration or proper color saturation, etc. So please take my review with a grain of salt if those type of technical details are important to you. This lens has worked perfectly for me. In both manual and autofocus modes, I have been able to product outstanding photographs. When I am trying to being critical; my Mark 5D III full frame camera, products slightly sharper pictures than my 7D cropped frame camera, however both cameras product sharp, vibrant pictures with this lens when there is sufficient light. I have come to prefer prime lens, but this lens filled a gap in my lens collection and I am extremely happy with it. I can't say that it is the best value for the money, because I have had friends who know much more about photography than I ever care to know, tell me that are a few third party lens that are a better value. Other peoples opinions notwithstanding, I have no complaints and am extremely happy with this particular lens.

Good flexible lens for the wide-angle shots.

For me this is the perfect wide angle zoom. While it's still a decent sized lens it's light and small compared to it's 2.8 counterpart. The IS works amazingly well and it's even pretty damn sharp wide open.

Update -- 8-19-2014 I have now taken my new 16-35mm f/4 to shoot those pesky stars and let me say... I was right. The corners at f/4 are so nice. If you zoom in, you can see that there are still some SLIGHT issues, however, the corners are much better than when compared to the 17-40L. If you have to zoom in to see the problems, then most people who look at your image won't notice. There is virtually no image degradation in the corners and the center is so very clean. And it only gets better from there. Stopping down, you get improved resolution in the corners by f/5.6 and there is much less vignetting. When used with a Neutral Density filter, you can get some very nice looking long exposures. It is a little longer and heavier than the 17-40L, but the improvements far outweigh the size increase. As to the construction quality, it is so solid. The switches offer enough solidity without being to firm and the zoom and focus rings have plenty of grip on them. On mine, the zoom ring is a little stiff, however, it is a brand new lens. I've only ever bought used lenses until this one so I'm sure it will loosen in time. I am very happy with my choice over the 17-40L. Original -- 8-10-2014 Alright, so you're looking at a new wide-angle lens. You've obviously heard about the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens or you were directed here from another location on the Internet. Either way, you were now looking at reviews for a brand-new lens and possibly wondering to yourself, `How good is this lens really?". Well, let me see if I can help. Back in 2003, Canon released the 17-40mm f/4L USM lens to the general public and, as of today, you can get a used one from a reputable place here on Amazon or eBay for about $600 to $700. I rented one a couple of months ago and, to be honest, I thought it was pretty good. However, I was shooting some astrophotography and I noticed in one of the corners the "coma effect". If you take a picture of a relatively small circular object such as a star you will see that it looks somewhat deformed. Considering that this is something that I want to do, that's a problem for me. In reading around on the Internet the different reviews for the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM released in 2007, I saw that it had the potential of having slightly mushy corners. Whereas on both of these lenses the center can be pretty sharp, the corners is an important consideration for me being as I want the entire image to be clear and stunning. Coming in at about $1500, I really didn't want to look at this one in the first place. Yes, it has the 2.8 aperture, but at 2-3 times the price of the 17-40, I would've much rather purchased the cheaper and older model and still have gotten about the same images. Now, here comes Canon's release of the 16-35mm f/4L IS USM at a middle-of-the-road $1200. The appeal to me wasn't the $1200 price tag. If that was the only consideration then I would've straight up purchased the 17-40, however, my consideration is based on all-around image quality. This means having to test out my new lens. So I did. As a short term test goes, the clichéd "brick wall" test is a good way to compare two lenses side-by-side. I compared it to my 24-70mm f/2.8L version I (a lens that is known to be very good) and went about looking at those pesky corners. The results give me hope about my new lens. The corners were very good when compared to my 24-70. However, being in the middle-to-end of summer makes it very difficult to want to go outside, even at night, to take pictures for hours. So for now, my short-term test is good enough for me. When I'm able to, I will update my review with my findings in regards to the lens with prolonged use. So until then, I hope my review helps you a little bit. I know it's not much to read, however, it's an honest review from someone who is attempting to use photography as a way to create something meaningful and amazing. If you want to watch the comparison video I made, then type "canon 16-35mm f/4l is usm review" in YouTube's search bar and look for my name. If you have any questions then please ask them in the comments and I will do my best to help you. Thank you for reading and happy shooting!

I have used this lens on a bunch of jobs including a small bathroom and I love this lens. My only complaint is that at 16mm the angle is so wide I have a hard time hiding my lights! The chromatic aberration control is fantastic! the best I've seen—not that I've seen every lens for every system—, but this lens is really an interior/landscape photographers dream. The transition between extreme contrast situations like sun beaming through a window is controlled incredibly well. It is a sharp lens and it is sharp all the way to the corners, getting only a little softer in the corners. And the distortion is well controlled as well with some barrel distortion at 16mm and some pin cushion at 35mm, but very reasonable. It has the more standard 77mm diameter which means you can swap filters with your other "L" series lenses. It feels well built, it should be, it is an "L" lens. The hood is awesome too. So much easier and more elegant than other hoods that I have for other "L" lenses, seems like a small thing, but why didn't Canon do this before? I can't explain why I like the button feature on the hood so much, but I do, it just goes on so smoothly and then it locks into place, love it! This lens is a bit expensive compared to some other competitive lenses, but if you care about the things I mention above, paying an extra $400–$500 is well worth it. If you're just getting into wide angle, landscape or interior photography you might want to look at some of the less expensive lenses out there. There are some with a lot of fanfare which I seriously considered, but after using many other wide angle lenses including Canon's 14mm prime I settled on this one. There are some primes out there that are better than this lens, but primes should be better, although I didn't love the 14mm as much as I thought I would. I wanted the zoom for that little bit of flexibility that it offers. In interior photography there are only so many places to set up your tripod and gear and being able to zoom in or out just a little is well worth the trade off. Also the fact that you can use filters on a lens this wide is a huge bonus. I like this lens a lot, but it's not for everybody. I think that Canon priced this lens fairly, although I would like it better if it was around $900. I'm very happy with this lens and would highly recommend it!