An ultra wide-angle is something that should be in every camera bag a photographer in my opinion. Not only can be with such lenses create wonderful panoramas or expansive shots in nature, even in the City or at festivals, such an optical-haves. Likewise, where the room is badly limited and you just come with the slight WW as 24mm to its limits, for example in small registry offices.
Until I put a for such a record 17-40 4.0 L USM, with whom I was always satisfied basically even, with one exception: the outer edges are at this lens, unfortunately, only very strong dimmed useful, so for example with f11 , This will certainly not be noticeable in many cases, but when it comes down to it and create it later if necessary large-format includes prints to sell or, then the some difficulties related to it. Usually one needs in such aperture a tripod and just this are unfortunately quite often not allowed, for example, in many churches, or at tourist attractions. In addition, you are of course a tripod is not really very flexible.
The 16-35 2.8L II USM was for me after some trial and error and not a real option, because to f8 the edges were there not really a feast for the eyes and often vague. In addition, it was also more difficult and more expensive.
The new 4.0 L IS USM sets 16-35er now quasi between the two aforementioned lenses and is an entirely new optical calculation and brings to the IS a feature that is hotly debated for many photographers. One side is the view that light intensity while the other represents the position by nothing but light intensity can be replaced, that IS can to be able to provide.
I sit there something in the middle, because I sit too fast lenses like the 85 1.2L II a for portraits and'm also uncompromising. A 85 2.0 IS'd not come in the camera case. The UWW I see it somewhat differently, because here the IS can really one time or another help the ISOs to keep pleasantly low and still be able to do without a tripod. Especially with UWW shots indoors, where it depends on the details you want but then just working with higher aperture and that is where the IS is interesting.
We come now to the optical qualities of the lens. The focus is generally very high, as is the contrast performance. The edges, as well as the extreme edges are from open aperture really sharp, high contrast and leave the other Canon UWW not look very good. The focus at the center is very good in all UWW, but at the edges, the chaff from the wheat. This is a clear point for the 16-35 4.0 L IS USM.
CA's are as good as any to hear, especially in UWW recordings are then sometimes just in treetops, breaking through some light, easy to sift through annoying CA's. In the 17-40 one had to control something in Lightroom there already, but this was not an issue per se and. However, it is nice that the new lens makes better from the state and such corrections are not necessary. The vignetting is clearly visible at maximum aperture, but not nearly as strong as in the 17-40 which vignetting stronger. In general it can fix the vignetting in Lightroom, a big problem is not the vignetting se.
Yesterday, the first application was for a contract with the new lens and I'm thrilled. The IS has really helped me in really small registry office and worked perfectly. A decrease in sharpness has not been determined with switched stabilization of me. In general, the pictures seem to me without processing the RAW bit crisper than the 17-40 or the 16-35ers. A profile for the corrections are not yet available in the Lightroom yet. The AF was perfect from the factory, it was necessary no adjustment.
Conclusion: The appearance is as good as I had hoped, just the visual impression of the borders is really good and can be used from open aperture without hesitation. Over the entire zoom range, the lens gives a high sharpness and contrast. The IS works well and quietly and extends the range of possibilities on site enormous.
Compared to 17-40er and 16-35er 2.8 it has some really remarkable advantages. Generally, it is both the lenses markedly poorer performance edge that falls is immediately apparent, which does not mean that the lenses are unusable. It is just only if you want to have the margins to accommodate sharp, rely on much stronger Fade what precisely in individual cases but also may lead to difficulties or additional expenditure as a tripod.
My comparison with the lenses as simple +/- list:
17-40 compared to 16-35 4.0 L
- Feather is significantly lower at 17-40
- More pronounced CA-susceptibility
- No IS
+ Much cheaper
+ Lighter and smaller
16-35 2.8 compared to 4.0 L 16-35
- Feather is significantly lower when 2,8er
- Somewhat more susceptible to CAs
- Significantly higher price
- No IS
+ 2,8er Aperture
