EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

[John_SD]

Does anyone have field experience with the EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM? How do you like it for landscape work? While I own the EOS RP, I won't be needing the RF 15-35mm f2.8 L IS USM as it is more than twice the cost of the EF 16-35mm. I will be picking up the Canon Mount Adapter regardless, so I can use EF lenses. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@John_SD wrote:

Does anyone have field experience with the EF 16-35mm f4 L IS USM? How do you like it for landscape work? While I own the EOS RP, I won't be needing the RF 15-35mm f2.8 L IS USM as it is more than twice the cost of the EF 16-35mm. I will be picking up the Canon Mount Adapter regardless, so I can use EF lenses. 

---

I would not buy EF glass for use on the RF mount.  

Cano has been selling the RP with the RF 24-105 f/7.1 lens, but I assume that is not the package you have.  Canon has an RF version of the nifty fifty coming.  I recommend that lens.  They also have other consumer lenses coming for the RF mount.

[shadowsports]

John,

My primary photographic interests lie in architecture and landscapes.  I have the 16~35 f2.8 II.  I love it.

Problem is I'm not using it with a mirrorless camera.  I hope Wadizzle can elaborate further why he recommends the RF 50 over a EF 16~35 used with a control ring.  I thought testing had revealed optical accuracy and likeness.

I have an EF 50 today.  It has its place, but could not achieve what something below 40 could or what a 16mm would do for you from a FOV standpoint.

There is probably a formula or reasoning behind Wadizzle's recommendation.  Maybe something to do with the distance the lenses are from the sensor.  I'm sure he will clarify.   

[ebiggs1]

"I have an EF 50 today.  It has its place, ..."

This is true and it is not as a first or second or even at third lens to acquire.  Ever since the appearance of the high quality zooms the 50mil has seen a reduced roll. Unless you have a specific purpose it is not a good choice. They are difficult to use because they are so limiting. I would disregard the advice of a 50mil as a viable landscape lens or even as a general purpose lens.

"I have the 16~35 f2.8 II.  I love it."

I have heard this, I have the first version and the folks said the same things about it.  I got bit once not likely to get bit again. One reason I found and bought a similar FL zoom lens that greatly out preforms it at half the price.

I can not comment on the IQ of the f4 version as I do not own it. I hate adapters but I guess the EF to R works just fine. It is still another piece of gear you have to have and attach and remove, etc. If I had an R camera I would buy R designed lenses.

[John_SD]

Thanks for the tips, guys. Just to clarify, when I bought the RP (which was already on sale at $899), I had the option to include the RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM lens for a measly $100 extra, so I took it. For a nearly free lens, I have no complaints.  For the price, It is OK wide open and I can live with it at the tight end in bright light. As this was my first mirrorless camera as well as being first FF, I wasn't sure I would even like mirrorless, and wanted the lens as something to get started with without breaking the bank.

I looked at the kit as a learning experience. In truth, it has all exceeded my expectations. I love the mirrorless tech, and the RP for me is a great place to start. That said, I am looking to build up. I have also read a lot of glowing reviews from guys who put their EF lenses on to their R/RP cameras via the Canon EF to R adapter with great results. So I figured for $999 the EF 16-35mm f/4L would be fine. The RF version (RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM) is more than twice the cost at $2299. Hence, the EF version.

[wq9nsc]

I agree with Ernie that if I were going the R route, I would aim for RF lenses because you will ultimately end up with that system.  Maybe consider buying used or refurb EF at this point so that your "loss" won't be much when you sell it and make the transition to RF.  I could see going with an adapter if the lens was a speciality lens that I rarely used but I wouldn't want to go the adapter route for a lens I expected to use often.

The EF 16-35 F4 IS gets very good reviews so it seems to have great optics.  I usually go for the widest aperture lens in a focal length because of what I shoot but like Ernie I wasn't happy with the 16-35 f2.8 I bought early in my move to digital and switched to the 17-40 F4 which at that time was producing much better images and because I have never felt the need for a wide aperture lens in this zoom range I have stayed with the tried and true 17-40 F4.  It isn't a focal length I use a lot but it does the job when I need it in a small and light package.  And with all of the Canon glass I have used going back to the AE-1 days, the 2005 era 16-35 f2.8 and 50mm f1.4 are the only Canon lenses that have ever disappointed me.  The optical quality wasn't what I expected from the 16-35 f2.8 and the 50mm f1.4 AF mechanism failed twice and was replaced by a 50 f1.4 Sigma Art series which is working very nicely in the two years I have owned it which is a year longer than the Canon made it after its second trip to Canon repair land. 

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

"I wasn't happy with the 16-35 f2.8 I bought early in my move to digital and switched to the 17-40 F4..."

I went the opposite direction.  I had the 17-40mm f4 and was satisfied with it.  But I wanted to have all three of my main most used lenses to have a f2.8 aperture. I could not sell the photos the 16-35mm f2.8 produced. Its not that it is horrible and for landscapes it is OK. But so much of my work has people in it so that has to be there or people won't buy.

It has to be a model wide or at least lot number wide issue because I am not the only person that has it. When you use an UWA lens for a group shot of people you have to be extremely careful how you orient them and set up the gear.

.

[Waddizzle]

---

@shadowsports wrote:

John,

My primary photographic interests lie in architecture and landscapes.  I have the 16~35 f2.8 II.  I love it.

Problem is I'm not using it with a mirrorless camera.  I hope Wadizzle can elaborate further why he recommends the RF 50 over a EF 16~35 used with a control ring.  I thought testing had revealed optical accuracy and likeness.

I have an EF 50 today.  It has its place, but could not achieve what something below 40 could or what a 16mm would do for you from a FOV standpoint.

There is probably a formula or reasoning behind Wadizzle's recommendation.  Maybe something to do with the distance the lenses are from the sensor.  I'm sure he will clarify.   

---

I think the other guys have summed it up pretty well.  Only invest big in native mount lenses.  

----------------------------------------------------------

Why the RF mount 50mm?  It is going to be listed for about $200.  It has a wide aperture, something which every photographer should have in their bag.  As for its' limited use, that boils.down to how you use your camera, and personal preferences.  

It appears to be just as compact as the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, which means it is not going to draw as much power as most other lenses.  I often use the 50mm prime when I do not want to stand out in a crowd.  I roll the camera to portrait mode, and capture a series of shots to be merged into a single wide angle image, with better details than using a UWA lens.

I like the angle of view of 50mm on a full frame body.  While you can get that focal length with your zoom, you may find that it is not good to use indoors without a flash.  I always have a fast prime in my bag.

[John_SD]

Wow. Digital Camera World just posted something very intersting regarding some possible new wide-angle zooms for the RF system. Keeping my fingers crossed on this. The article contains some good news for those of us getting into RF lenses. 

"According to Canon News, reported via Canon Rumors, the world’s biggest camera manufacturer recently filed patents for two wide-angle zooms for its EOS R full-frame mirrorless system. If it comes to market, the RF 15-35mm f/4L IS USM or RF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM will be a more affordable version of the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM, which costs $2,299/$2,399." 

I'd be thrilled to see either one make it to market. The RF lens roadmap keeps expanding, so I am happy about that. 

[ebiggs1]

" The RF lens roadmap keeps expanding,..."

It is the future so good or bad that's the way it is. That's one reason if R is your choice you need to keep it R.