Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links. If you purchase something through a link on our site, we may get a small share of the sale (at no cost to you). Please read our disclosure for more info.
When the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM was first announced we wondered why anyone would pick it over the cheaper 17-40L or similarly priced but faster 16-35L II. Many of our readers have written in and asked that same question!
We’re now seeing early reviews confirming what the MTF charts said: astounding corner performance. One of the most clear examples is a sequence of test shots taken by Australian photographer Phil Aynsley. It’s not a scientific study, but clearly shows wide-angle corner performance is significantly improved over the 16-35L II and TS-E 17mm, even when stopped down. (Center performance is about the same.)
The performance is quite impressive, and I’m also pleased Canon set a reasonable price for it instead of the usual bleeding-edge premium (remember the 70-200 II introduction at $2499?).
Profeel via eBay has a limited quantity of the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM in-stock and ready to ship. Order today and it ships on Monday, price is $1199.00. We’re also hearing that the first B&H Photo Video pre-orders have shipped and their website shows a general availability date of June 24th.
Emily Smith
On My List when I upgrade to Full Frame, I have had the 17-40 f/4L for over 6 years now on a Canon 40D crop, And I Love the 17-40 and can see this 16-35f/4L is gonna do the job for my Landscapes as I really don’t need 2.8
Any opinions on 16-35 f/4 IS versus 16-35 f/2 non IS? Can’t decide.
The f/4 is much sharper in the corners. If you don’t need f/2.8 (indoor, low light, event photography) and more often do landscape photography the f/4 is for you.
Thanks CPW. But I want to have my 16-35 and eat it too. No wait.. Grrr. Why can’t I have both?..