C300 - Quick Test of new Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens

[Jon Roemer]

All handheld. All @ 23.97, 180 deg. shutter, 16mm, and with IS on. Graded C-log.

Lens looks to live up to the MTF charts, it's very sharp. IS is very smooth, not jerky at all. Only seemed to make a slight sound when turned on or turned off.

Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS USM test on Vimeo

Blog post w/more info: Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens – Video Test | Learning to See .

[Phil Douglas]

Awesome - I ordered one of these 2 days ago based on the mtf charts, sample chart pics. and a couple trusted reviews, should have it in my hands after the weekend, but will be stuck for the time being using it with a 60d until I get back to my c300 and full frame in a few weeks. been wanting a sharp wide lens - was getting close to grabbing a zeiss as canon really lacks in the wide&sharp department - looking forward to using it - though a little faster would certainly have been nice, but at least it still looks good wide open (not having to stop an f4 lens down to 8 to use it) & at all focal lengths and I think it's the f4 that's keeping the price reasonable.

phil

Edit - the footage looks good - there does seem to be a little distortion at 16mm - but that's not unexpected. And the handheld/IS holds up well - despite the reviews stating otherwise - though being at 16mm certainly helps.

[Jon Roemer]

Originally Posted by Phil Douglas

Awesome - I ordered one of these 2 days ago based on the mtf charts, sample chart pics. and a couple trusted reviews, should have it in my hands after the weekend, but will be stuck for the time being using it with a 60d until I get back to my c300 and full frame in a few weeks. been wanting a sharp wide lens - was getting close to grabbing a zeiss as canon really lacks in the wide&sharp department - looking forward to using it - though a little faster would certainly have been nice, but at least it still looks good wide open (not having to stop an f4 lens down to 8 to use it) & at all focal lengths and I think it's the f4 that's keeping the price reasonable.

phil

Edit - the footage looks good - there does seem to be a little distortion at 16mm - but that's not unexpected. And the handheld/IS holds up well - despite the reviews stating otherwise - though being at 16mm certainly helps.

Yes, still a little distortion but also slightly less than the 16-35 f/2.8 II lens and less at both ends; wide/barrel, zoomed in/pincushion.

And yes, it does look good wide open - something the 16-35 f/2.8 I or II never did except maybe for photojournalistic stills, where it was acceptable. The 16-34 f/2.8 1 & II needed to be at ~f/5.6 - f/8 for people, f/11 or more for architecture and for that 16mm~19mm was still suspect. Depending upon the camera body the corners would still be mushy.

It's a different kind of thing but if you want the sharpest and least distortion Canon wide angles the 17mm TSE and 24mm TSE II are the way to go.