<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic New Canon 16-35 f4! in EF &amp; RF Lenses</title>
    <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/New-Canon-16-35-f4/m-p/101456#M17499</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I just got the new 16-35 IS lens from fedex...ordered direct from Canon...anyone else got this yet?&amp;nbsp; I just did some prelim tests on a brick wall and some landscapes and I am not that thrilled with it. It is definitely better at the edges and corners than my 17-40 at 16mm....but it is not as sharp in the center and lacks the pop of the old lens there. Also...it has pretty soft corners at&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;35mm and again not as sharp in the center. I shot tests at f4, 5.6, and 8....the lens is actually the most impressive wide open...it does not improve much when stopping down....please share your experiences...I want to find out if I got a bad copy.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:53:31 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>echelonphoto</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-06-27T18:53:31Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>New Canon 16-35 f4!</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/New-Canon-16-35-f4/m-p/101456#M17499</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I just got the new 16-35 IS lens from fedex...ordered direct from Canon...anyone else got this yet?&amp;nbsp; I just did some prelim tests on a brick wall and some landscapes and I am not that thrilled with it. It is definitely better at the edges and corners than my 17-40 at 16mm....but it is not as sharp in the center and lacks the pop of the old lens there. Also...it has pretty soft corners at&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;35mm and again not as sharp in the center. I shot tests at f4, 5.6, and 8....the lens is actually the most impressive wide open...it does not improve much when stopping down....please share your experiences...I want to find out if I got a bad copy.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:53:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/New-Canon-16-35-f4/m-p/101456#M17499</guid>
      <dc:creator>echelonphoto</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-06-27T18:53:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: New Canon 16-35 f4!</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/New-Canon-16-35-f4/m-p/101498#M17500</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You may want to read this then.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A target="_blank" href="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1377245"&gt;http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1377245&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2014 01:51:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/New-Canon-16-35-f4/m-p/101498#M17500</guid>
      <dc:creator>cicopo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-06-28T01:51:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: New Canon 16-35 f4!</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/New-Canon-16-35-f4/m-p/101758#M17501</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Just use the lens on a job....I think it is severely back focusing!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2014 17:19:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/New-Canon-16-35-f4/m-p/101758#M17501</guid>
      <dc:creator>echelonphoto</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-06-29T17:19:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: New Canon 16-35 f4!</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/New-Canon-16-35-f4/m-p/101910#M17502</link>
      <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/2977"&gt;@echelonphoto&lt;/a&gt; wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just use the lens on a job....I think it is severely back focusing!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;You think it's severely back focusing?&amp;nbsp; Put it on a tripod and find out for sure.&amp;nbsp; A f/4 UWA shouldn't really need AFMA, but you can check.&amp;nbsp; If it's outside of the realm of AFMA then you got a lemon; it happens.&amp;nbsp; But your original post doesn't seem to indicate a back-focus issue, so I'm curious how you came to this conclusion.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:07:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/New-Canon-16-35-f4/m-p/101910#M17502</guid>
      <dc:creator>Skirball</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-06-30T15:07:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

