Delivering the ultimate combination of wide-angle, low-light performance, L-series optics and compact construction, the new Canon EF 16–35mm f/4L IS USM lens is a phenomenal complement to any EOS SLR camera. This L-series ultra wide-angle zoom incorporates an Optical Image Stabilizer, and offers up to four stops of correction for admirable performance even in dim light. It features three aspheric lens elements and two UD lens elements to minimize aberrations throughout the zoom range, plus a fluorine coating that helps to minimize ghosting. A circular 9-blade aperture delivers gorgeous background blur. The EF 16–35mm f/4L IS USM features inner focusing and ring USM for accurate, discreet and speedy AF. It also offers full-time manual focus and has a minimum focusing distance of 0.92 ft./0.28m across the entire zoom range. Built to function even in unfavorable weather conditions, the EF 16–35mm f/4L IS USM is dust-resistant and water-resistant (when used with an optional Canon PROTECT filter) for professional caliber ultra-wide performance, everywhere.
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens
Already own this?
This item is in your gearlist!
- 16-35mm focal length
- 25.6-56mm equivalent focal length on APS-C cameras
- F4 maximum aperture
- 0.28m / 11.02" minimum focus
- Ring-type ultrasonic AF motor with full-time manual focusing
- 77mm filters
- Canon EF mount for full frame, APS-H and APS-C DSLRs
|Lens type||Zoom lens|
|Max Format size||35mm FF|
|Focal length||16–35 mm|
|Image stabilisation||Yes (up to four stops)|
|Lens mount||Canon EF|
|Number of diaphragm blades||9|
|Special elements / coatings||3 aspheric and 2 UD lens elements, plus fluorine coating|
|Minimum focus||0.28 m (11.02″)|
|Motor type||Ring-type ultrasonic|
|Full time manual||Yes|
|Weight||615 g (1.36 lb)|
|Diameter||83 mm (3.25″)|
|Length||113 mm (4.44″)|
|Zoom method||Rotary (internal)|
|Filter thread||77 mm|
|Hood product code||EW-82|
Canon EF 16-35mm F/4L IS USM Short-Take Review and Sample Images
Canon 16-35 F4 L IS vs Canon 24-70 2.8 II The UPS driver arrived about an hour ago with the Canon 16-35 F/4L IS USM and I did a little bit of driving around taking a few sample photos. All of these wide angle lenses are really tripod lenses. If you try to take a picture at F4 (17-40) or F2.8 (16-35) what you get are soft images in my opinion. You really need a narrower aperture to get that sharp photo. I found the best way to take photos with the non-IS 17-40 was using a tripod. However, not ...
Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
Having never owned a "full frame" ultra wide angle zoom, I was hesitant to spend the extra cash on the brand new 16-35 F/4L IS over the 17-40 F/4L. The price difference is pretty significant for what appears to be just adding Image Stabilization (though enough reviews have demonstrated that IS really works). Since I'm not truly convinced of the benefit of IS on an ultra wide angle (either you're on a tripod for landscape or typically you can get a decent handheld shot at 1/30th @ 16mm), I was ...
very first impressions
Picked it up today and first thing I noticed is that the BW protector filter I got for it ( yes Im one of those , get over it) is helluva site harder to thread onto the lens. Not usre if its cos the front is plastic not metal - dunno - feels plasticky. the whole lens feels nicely made but not as reassuringly solid as some, I think Il feel a little more timid about scratching this one than other Ive had (virtually all of the Canon lenses under 200m) the 17-40 was an extrenmely good copy that I ...
Here is my first photo using this lens. Its not a true test, but that will come later. I used a Canon 5D3 and totally auto settings, ie, Scene Intelligence, with a focus point of the fire place. The camera set the ISO at 2000, which is way more than I would usually do. Still, the overall color is a very accurate reproduction of my Great Room. Even at f/4, its very sharp. The only adjustment I made was in Photoshop Elements to lower the noise due to the high ISO. No other adjustments were ...
Full Frame: F2.8 vs. F4?
This is about zooms: 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200. Canon is unique in offering both F2.8 and F4 versions. Nikon only has F2.8. Sony FE (the new A7 models) are only F4. But there are differences: 1) While the 70-200 has IS for both apertures, the F4 has for the 16-35 and the 24-70. For low light stills, IS may provide 2-4 F-stops more light with a slower shutter speed (although with more motion blur of a moving subject) while the F2.8 is just one F-stop faster. For low light stills, F4 IS would seem to be preferable. 2) F2.8 will produce a slightly shorter DOF. It is the same difference as using the same F2.8 lens on an APS-C (e.g. 7D) vs. full frame: F4 full-frame DOF = F2.8 APS-C DOF. Does that really matter, especially at lower focal lengths which generally have a long DOF? 3) A lens or camera isn't very useful unless you have it with you. The two 16-35s are about the same weight (the new Tamron 15-30 F2.8 VC is nearly double), the F4 24-70 IS is about 1/2 pound lighter, but the F4 ...
Answer: Review your own research, compare your needs to the data you have gathered, and make a decision. Continue Reading
David, You have some good questions, but I'll just say this first: I'm never short of amazed how much money I see being spent on things that so often make so little difference and so often purely on the quest to have "the best". I have seen insane amounts of money spent on gear that first gets used only to take pictures of ducks and squirrels, and then ends up on Craigslist with the description "Mint condition! Only used three times!" I don't see this just every so often... I see it a LOT! Now, with that brief editorial out of the way, I'll address a few of your issues. First, the 70-200 lenses. Yes, you are correct that IS can help 2-4 stops for still subjects. You are also correct that moving subjects will blur at low shutter speeds. So what does that mean for you? Well, if you shoot still subjects and that extra stop of bokeh is not worth a cool thousand, then the f4 might be good for you. We actually own both the f2.8 and f4 IS versions. Wedding photographers probably end up ... Continue Reading
What would be the better choice?
Hi all, I'm Justin. I'm an aspiring landscape and travel photographer and I'm new to the DP forums. I have a question to you guys, what do you think is better for me for $1200: a Canon 16-35mm f/4L lens or a Fuji X100T? I know these 2 products are completely different, but they are pretty much the same price and I do like both a lot, so let me justify each one: 1. I'm a landscape photographer, so a piece of high quality ultra-wide glass would be very beneficial to me. I use an EOS 6D which already produces superb images and I've heard that the new 16-35 is an absolute cracker of a lens to go with it. I've heard that it's the sharpest ultra-wide Canon zoom ever, especially at the edges. It's also relatively light and sports IS, which is a massive bonus as well! 2. I also travel quite a lot, and walking along the streets and markets with the 6D in my hand already attracts attention even without me raising it to me eye. The Fuji is IMO the perfect camera for stealthy street shooting ...
If you are a pro then buying things really is an investment. Consider how many sales you expect from each of your choices; the better investment is the one with the higher predicted return. If you aren't a pro you're considering expenditure, not investment. The choice then comes down to which will give you more enjoyment - and that might come from number of images caught, satisfaction from creating something special or any number of other factors. No one here can judge the relative importance of those things for you. If you can't afford both, try this: spin a coin, next day go to buy the one the coin favours (in a shop or online). If your heart sinks as you start to commit to the purchase you know you've got it wrong; if it doesn't you can be fairly sure you'll be happy with that choice. If you're happy with that choice it won't matter if you'd also be happy with the other; it only matters if you think you'll regret the other. Continue Reading
Security of photo gear in Madagascar
I'm travelling to east of Madagascar (Masoala, Andasibe, Berenty) in near future and wondering how about security when taking photo gear with me (backpack, tripod etc.). I have read about robberies in this country, especially in the cities, in the night and on main roads between cities in the southern part of the country. Does anyone have (recently) experience with Madagascar? How big is the risk of beeing attacked? And how to avoid / minimize risks?
Firstly, this post is in the wrong forum. Try the Open Talk forum. Secondly, take the usual precautions when travelling, and ask at your hotel about unsafe areas etc. Continue Reading
Yup. I'd put this in the Travel forum (or maybe the Open one, I guess). I never had any problems in Madagascar, although I have no idea if the situation there has changed in the past few years. I'd almost certainly never photograph after dark unless there were at least 2 others in my group. The only place I felt unsafe during daylight hours in Africa was in Zimbabwe, and that was only in a few of the smaller towns, where there were zero other white faces around, and where tourists rarely went. Continue Reading