When Canon EF 16-35mm f / 4.0 L IS USM fits really much into the picture.
Both of the spacious view and the lens itself.
In this review, I would like some Canon wide-angle lenses to compare the before my
Purchasing decisions have played a role from the 16-35mm 4.0 IS. Prospective I procure a broad overview of the following objectives ...
(Canon EF 17-40mm f / 4,0L USM) (Canon EF 16-35mm f / 2.8L USM II) (Canon TS-E 17mm f / 4L)
(Canon EF 11-24mm f / 4L USM) and of course the (Canon EF 16-35mm f / 4,0L IS USM)
The first question for me was the price of over 1,000 euros is justified?
I came to the conclusion that the price is fair. Because the new Ww is priced right in the middle of
Canon 17-40mm (700) and the old Canon 16-35mm 2.8 II (1300).
Visually, it should, however, be the best. Personally, I never had the pleasure of having the
17-40mm, but the 16-35mm 2.8 II I had time shooting for 1 borrowed.
It remained, however. Since it was not very torn me away ...
Canon EF 16-35mm f / 4,0L IS USM
****************************
The processing of the lens is very good. It is very similar to my 24-70mm 2.8 II. Thanks to Image Stabilizer are video recordings from the hand become easier. At 16mm like to go without but to at 35mm has him. With its 9 diaphragm blades to obtain great highlights and round bokeh circles. The Flouritvergütung protect front and back lens against dirt that the other two lenses does not offer. The lens when zooming neither greater nor less. This one is better protected against dust and splash water. That was me especially on Amrum a great help because as it is very windy and there are very fine sand. A horror combination for each objective ... However, one is fully hedged with a filter.
I'll always be a polarization filter it can indeed be the swallows light but I photograph so anyway it from the tripod. In a pinch, is there still the excellent image stabilization compensates for the 4 stages.
Small disadvantages: The overall sharpness at f 4 indeed very good but only from aperture 8 the edges are in comparison to the center equivalent. Distortion at 16mm is at the edges but recognizable meaning it is all a bit more protracted.
However, this is typical of wide-angle lenses. The Ww format may for example be a total negative impact on an image. in portraits.
But it can also be used creatively. If you want the difference between near and far in the Image emphasize.
Canon EF 17-40mm f / 4,0L USM
**************************
Advantages: cheaper 700 smaller and lighter 475g.
Visually, it is supposed to be the weakest Ww-Zoom and where but here come the new 50 megapixel cameras (5D & 5DsR). That would not fit so well together. Because Megapixel cameras reinforce Lens error unfortunately it than this laminating. It has no stabilizer and only 7 diaphragm blades. It should be very prone to chromatic aberration. But used for the small purse certainly still a good deal.
Canon EF 16-35mm f / 2.8L USM II
****************************
In my opinion, the only advantage is the aperture 2.8.
The disadvantages: weight 640g, no stabilizer, 82mm filter connection.
Optical weaker than the new (4.0) both in sharpness and in lentigines backlit.
It has only 7 diaphragm blades. The price of 1300
The Canon 16-35mm 2.8 II is often used in the job world of photojournalists sports and wedding photographers.
And rightly so, in this world everything is moving that fast shutter speeds are required.
This is either iso or visor, and before being slain by the Iso-snow you take maybe the diaphragm for help.
But what a shot "everyone" with its wide-angle zoom Dedicated
The answer landscapes and architecture! Since you have the time and stationary subjects generally.
Does there a 2.8er aperture at all? I for my part say no.
I want to have, if possible, in focus in my image all without Bokeh.
Therefore, my main focus is on a Ww diaphragm 8 bis 16th
Since the Canon EF 16-35mm L IS USM is the aperture 4.0 a good deal for me.
If I want to freeze people in low-light I take just a flash. But I've finally gekauft.Falls I should not have the time to hand it to me then me the image stabilizer
be a good substitute for the missing panel. Then it's just a short stay still love people. As in the good old days.
In my collection there is a 24-70mm 2.8 II from Canon with this lens I am equipped for low-light situations and very satisfied.
On full-frame 24mm are indeed already quite far, but in the city or traveling in small rooms, it is proverbially tight. In landscapes one can often go further back to get more into the picture. In the city or in buildings often impossible. Wide-angle lenses are really again another world!
Canon TS-E 17mm f / 4L
*******************
For architecture, there are of course the Canon 17mm tilt shift lens but had this lens a number of drawbacks for me ... The gewölpte lens = increased risk of fracture. No filter connection made possible. It has no autofocus. Taking pictures is almost exclusively in the M-mode, thereby a quick photo from the hand problem. It has no stabilizer and can not zoom. Finally, of course, the price of proud 2300th
The tilt shift lens is certainly the best tool for professionals to the converging lines of buildings to straighten out, but for everyday use is not to be used. Programs like Photoshop, etc. can converging lines in the post but now hinbiegen quite good;)
Canon EF 11-24mm f / 4L USM
************************
End of March to bring out Canon nor its professional wide-angle zoom.
The incredible 11mm wide angle view without fisheye can produce effect.
According to Canon, it is the best distortion values have an extremely wide angle zoom has ever produced, and the sharpness it will certainly again drauflegen a small shovel well. However, if you want to wait to live with a price of 2999. For me, no real alternative ...
In addition, it is wider and heavier than the Canon EF 16-35mm 4.0L IS USM.
I wish everyone wants to carry around a lot of fun with the 1180g to.
Conclusion
Those looking for a semi-professional wide-angle zoom is best advised here. Price and achievement are correct.
At last Canon has a sharp Ww-Z released that can convince even at the edges.
The image stabilizer is me especially when shooting out of hand a welcome help. I like it very therefore 5 stars
PRO / CONTRA the Canon EF 16-35mm f / 4,0L IS USM
+ Very sharp, optimized for high resolution sensor
+ As soon as edge drop the resolution
+ Very good image stabilizer
+ High-quality workmanship
+ As soon as chromatic aberration
+ Fast and silent USM motor
+ Leather bag + Lens Hood case
+ 9 Rounded diaphragm blades
+ For this performance, its price-value ...
Too expensive ... but for many amateur photographers still -
- Vignetting at f 4 in the shortest focal length (16mm)
- Weight of 615g (compared to 17-40mm)
- Light intensity "only" f4.0 (I've had enough but compared with the 2.8er)
- Splash-proof only with extra filter
- Extra costs Filter (77mm)
I hope I could be a little help with this comparison.
