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.

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.

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?

This lens has quickly become my go-to for almost everything! It is versatile and produces sharp, crisp images. It’s worth every penny!

Good flexible lens for the wide-angle shots.