Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens

Top positive review

So many good things to say, but I'll try to summarize

Reviewed in the United States on December 8, 2014

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!

10 people found this helpful

Top critical review

Critical reviews›

James W. Pulliam

Disappointed in this lens.

Reviewed in the United States on October 27, 2014

I used this lens on a 5d Mk3 and had some issues with it that caused me to return it. First, at 16mm/f4 I had some serious vignetting and also the picture had the black circular barrel limiting the picture to the radar screen look. Second the pictures I took at f/13 and higher 35MM focal length had some darkening in the upper left hand part of the picture though the sky was clear and bright. I think that this particular lens may have been damaged or defective. I will try it out again, but at a camera shop, to avoid the defects I experienced with this one lens. I have a 17-40 f/4 L lens I purchased from Amazon and it works very well, but I like the idea of an image stabilized wide angle since I would like to more video work and this lens (16-35 is) looked very promising.

6 people found this helpful

462 total ratings, 202 with reviews

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

From the United States

Julius Caesar

So many good things to say, but I'll try to summarize

Reviewed in the United States on December 8, 2014

Style: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

10 people found this helpful

Helpful

Jacob

This wonderful lens is now my favorite one

Reviewed in the United States on August 11, 2014

Style: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

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!

5 people found this helpful

Helpful

Trowski

An ultra-wide zoom lens that is fantastic for landscapes

Reviewed in the United States on July 1, 2014

Style: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

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.

98 people found this helpful

Helpful

hotdog12

Photojournalist's delight! UPDATE.

Reviewed in the United States on July 2, 2014

Style: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

The 16-35mm focal lengths are some of the most useful zoom ranges available, ideal for architecture, landscapes, street photography, photojournalism, artistic effects, even environmental portraits when used properly. I've been a photojournalist for over 30 years and replaced my old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1 with the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS. I bought this new f/4 version because, frankly, my old 16-35 isn't very sharp (v. 2 isn't much better), especially at the corners.

I shot some comparison tests at f/4 at 16mm, 24mm and 35mm. The new 16-35 f/4 blows the old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1 out of the water and, here's the kicker: sharpness, resolution, color fringing, resistance to flare closely matches my fabulously expensive 24-70 f/2.8L II. Even out of focus highlights appear crisper and better defined. Build quality, handling and external appearance is nearly identical to the 24-70 f/2.8L II.

The IS on the new 16-35 f/4 provides exceptional stability for hand-holding under low light conditions. The relatively compact lens hood is less cumbersome than the old design and includes a pinch-style lens cap. Although few will miss it, the new design does not incorporate a gel filter holder on the rear like the old 16-35 f/2.8 version 1.

I'm a photojournalist and prefer a f/2.8 lens to match my other lenses, but the optics on this new lens are so darn good that I'm going to slap that bad boy on one of my 5D III bodies and leave it there. Canon deserves kudos for producing a truly sharp extreme wide angle zoom at a reasonable price.

UPDATE: I've been using this lens for over two years now, including at several dismal low-light assignments. I haven't missed the f/2.8 aperture of my 16-35 f/2.8 (version 1) at all. No kidding. I've felt much freer to shoot wide open and the solid IS performance makes most low light work a breeze.

68 people found this helpful

Helpful

a long way from home

Incredibly sharp, punchy lens, fit for a full frame canon camera

Reviewed in the United States on October 16, 2014

Style: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

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?

9 people found this helpful

Helpful

Matt K.

Great Image Quality - Possibly my new favorite lens!

Reviewed in the United States on August 21, 2014

Style: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

This lens might become my new go to lens. I shoot a lot of landscapes and often find myself at the wide end of the spectrum. I previously owned the Canon 17-40 f/4L lens and this was the upgrade for me. I went with the 17-40 over the old 16-35 f/2.8 mainly because of the price and because I do not have many situations where I really need that extra wide aperture. Combine that with the fact that the older 16-35 had an 82mm filter size, I decided on the cheaper 17-40.

Compared to the 17-40, this lens really blows it out of the water in every area except the price. However, for what you get, the price on this lens is just right, and I am sure will be even better when it inevitably drops in the future.

The biggest downside of the old 17-40 was the corners. Wide open they were quite soft. This new lens wide open remains quite sharp throughout the image. The corners are a tiny bit softer than the center when wide open, but it is minor. I also own the very good 24-105 f/4L IS and the superbly sharp 70-200 f/4L IS and this lens easily competes with both and in fact might very well be even sharper.

IS is a welcome addition. Although I find myself on a tripod more often than not, IS is always welcome (even at these wide focal lengths), and to those shooting video, especially handheld, I am sure IS will be great for that.

The lens body is plastic, which I think is a departure from most of the other L lenses, but I do not think it matters. Build construction is top notch, just as you would expect from an L lens.

A note: I picked up a clear filter and a polarizer, both from the B+W XS-Pro series. I have done a few tests, and these filters do not seem to vignette even at 16mm.

3 people found this helpful

Helpful

Kindle Customer

Great Canon lense.

Reviewed in the United States on October 7, 2016

Style: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

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.

2 people found this helpful

Helpful

Jim

Four Stars

Reviewed in the United States on November 12, 2017

Style: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

Good flexible lens for the wide-angle shots.

One person found this helpful

Helpful

Canon's Best Super-Wide Zoom (and I've owned all of them at one point)

Reviewed in the United States on January 4, 2015

Style: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

After owning the 16-35mm f/2.8 for 5 years and shoots a LOT of landscape and real estate images, I was intrigued by the great reputation this new f/4 lens was getting. I finally pulled teh trigger, sold the 16-35/2.8 and bought this, and the rumors are all true: the image quality on this lens is Canon's best-in-class for wide angle zooms to date. The light resolution and sharper corners are noticeably better (I shoot a 5D3) and I am totally thrilled with the decision to go with this lens. The IS works amazingly when shooting candid people shots at 35mm at weddings, etc. At first I was concerned about losing f2.8 simply because I love fast lenses and thought I'd never own anything slower than 2.8, but in reality that doesn't matter with such a wide lens on a full frame. F2.8 at 19mm does NOT give you a creamy out-of-focus background, half the room is actually still in focus, lol! Plus, that's what the 50mm/1.2 is for if I need blurred backgrounds. My other concern was that I would be losing a whole stop of light shooting Milky Way images (I've done a bunch living in Arizona with nice dark deserts), but then I realized that was fin 3-4 years ago and now there are so many amazing MW shots on 500px, what's the point? So back to reality and what it is I shoot, and that is landscapes at f/11-f/14, and real estate at the same aperture, and since I can get the best quality to date from Canon in the super wide zoom category, I pulled the trigger and couldn't be happier. If it's image quality you're after, this is it. I've also bought the version 2 of the 24-70mm and the version 2 of the 70-200mm/2.8 IS and those two were leaps and bounds better in image quality than the version 1 copies, and this 16-35mm falls in that same category: huge leap upward for sharp corners, great resolution, awesome images. I've posted a 6-exposure sunrise I just took on new year's day morning with this lens. Go git it!

251 people found this helpful

Helpful

Timbo M.

Vivid and sharp

Reviewed in the United States on September 14, 2014

Style: Lens OnlyVerified Purchase

It has the magic. When you take a picture and you just see that vividness - its here. The colors pop. It's sharp - you can see leaves, trees, fronds, windows, bricks - sharp like razors - even wide open at f4. The 16-35 2.8L isn't this sharp at f4.

My old camera was a Canon T3i and I had a 10-22mm attached to it almost all the time - too bad that EF-S lens wouldn't work on my new full frame 6D. Such a combo. I wanted something similar for my 6D.

This lens is it. It has a constant f4 aperture. Of course a 2.8 lens will get you more depth of field - but what do you want? It's wide angle lens and you're not going to get much of that anyway. One more stop of light you say? With the high ISO sensitivity and low noise on the 6D - it's hardly missed.

What this lens has that the other canon wide angles don't is image stabilization. It lets you make the shutter speed even slower. One can already shoot absurdly slow owing to the wide angles. You can hand-hold this thing and get some clear shots at slow speeds like 1/8 of a second. It's rather odd.

What this lens excels at is landscape photography and also video - the image stabilization is great for that.

If you have an APS-C crop frame camera like a Rebel or a 60d/70d/7d - don't get this lens. There are much better options such as the 10-22, or the great ef-s 17-50mm. This 16-35mm is designed for full frame like the 5D, 6D and the pro cameras.

4 people found this helpful

Helpful

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Need customer service?

‹ See all details for Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens - Parent ASIN

5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens - Parent ASIN

›

Customer reviews

Customer reviews

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens - Parent ASIN

Top positive review

Top critical review

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

From the United States

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens - Parent ASIN › Customer reviews

Customer reviews

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens - Parent ASIN

Top positive review

Top critical review

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

From the United States

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens - Parent ASIN

›

Customer reviews