New Canon 16-35 f/4 IS

[Plyschmannen 1]

I just saw that a new WA lens has been announced ( http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/canon-announces-two-new-ef-ultra-wide (weitwinkel)-angle-zoom-lenses-and-white-eos-rebel-sl1-digital-slr-camera/ ) . I'm currently looking for a setup for my 5dmkIII. Having sold my ikelite setup, I'm starting fresh, and considering lenses and ports. Have initially been thinking about a Nauticam, and then buy the Canon 8-15 to use. However, this being a fullframe camera, that would go from circular crazy wide to wide. Unless your shooting whale sharks, Im thinking that might not be the ideal lens. I was in Coccos last year, and looking back at my shots and my gopro shots, extreamly few times did I wish for wider shots. More tele on the other hand...

 

I have already the Sigma 15FE and Canons 16-35 f/2.8 II, but I also read up that you need a very big dome to get good corner sharpnes, and preferly a 82mm +2 diopter. I'm using the 16-35 for other things (indoor concerts) so I'm not getting rid of it, but if this new lens, for a quite decent price, could outmatch the 2.8 version, and possible let me use a smaller dome, it would be something to consider.

 

Does anyone have a guess on what dome it would perform best in, and how small you possible could go? I'm doing all my diving traveling, and a dome take up very much space in the carry-on. And thinking of going with glas, does add quite a bit of weight.

 

Any feedback would be appreciated.

 

/Björn

[pKai 1]

I too am interested in this lens from an IQ perspective. I'm happy with the 2.8 II version, but if this is significantly better, I may be interested.

 

That said, dome requirements won't change from one to the other. The 9-ish inch domes will still be optimal since this is something that has more to do with the FL at the wide end than it does with the max F-stop.

 

Dimension-wise, these two are pretty similar; the F4 is a bit skinnier but about the same length, so port extensions may even be the same.

 

I can't wait for someone to do a comparison review underwater...... I'm certainly not spending money until then.... although from the topside reviews I've read, if I had neither lens today, I would get the F4 version..... Unless one absolutely needs 2.8 (topside), I believe the IS and lower price makes the F4 the better choice.

Edited July 9, 2014 by m1mm1m

[Cp 29]

I'm going to borrow the 16-35 f/4 from Ryan next week for shooting whalesharks. I have an f/2.8 which I just got last year. I might have waited had I know this lens was coming. Oh well, I like the f/2.8.

 

Björn, I think the 8-15mm is a great lens on FF, but yes, you do have to kind of think of it as a 15mm FF fisheye, with the occasional 8mm circular fisheye shot. Very good for CFWA; some people like to use a 1.4x teleconverter for CFWA with it.

 

I'll try to post a couple of pics next week with 16-35 f/4.

 

Cheers,

Cp

 

P.S. m1mm1m... nice avatar! I recognize that shot

 

[pKai 1]

 

P.S. m1mm1m... nice avatar! I recognize that shot

 

 

Yea, Chris... nice shot...... and I look forward to your thoughts on that lens..... I remember freezing my arse off that weekend! If I'm seen diving with a hood, the water is freezing.... LOL...

[Cp 29]

 

Yea, Chris... nice shot...... and I look forward to your thoughts on that lens..... I remember freezing my arse off that weekend! If I'm seen diving with a hood, the water is freezing.... LOL...

 

I recall the water being a little chilly, but wasn't it wicked cold topside too?

[pKai 1]

 

I recall the water being a little chilly, but wasn't it wicked cold topside too?

 

LOL.... Both.... but yes, the air temp in the 40s cut like razor blades when we came out....

[Tom_Kline 124]

I got the lens but the weather has turned nasty, over 2" (5 cm) of rain in the last 24 hours. The good news for me is that adult salmon should be up in some streams once the water starts to recede. I took advantage of a short break, only misting but still blustery (now is pouring again,) and shot in this stream that is only about 1 mile from where I live. Really too shallow for testing but I did these close-ups anyway. Two shots from same spot were at 15 and 31mm focal lengths. There is a tiny salmon fry in each shot - I did not see it when I was doing the shooting. The shot of my watch (@16mm) is even shallower - it is possible to see in focus behind watch to left and right of it due to field curvature.

This test was done with the Seacam wideport. The housing was on the stream bottom. It was not very submerged even though a small diameter port. I used a 55mm port extension tube a.k.a. PVL. Shots done at f/8 with ISO 1600 in aperture priority. I used the zoom gear for the 17-40 lens; it required some stretching.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Tom_Kline

[Tom_Kline 124]

The storm cleared and the precip led salmon up to the spawning area where I like to shoot. Got in these shots of Sockeye Salmon spawning yesterday evening. One pic shows the full frame while the other is a blow of the right side. The gravel in front of the male on the right end of the bunch is not sharp but is sharper in the background showing the curvature of field from the dome port.

I used the Seacam Superdome with 55mm of port extension. 16mm focal length, aperture = f/9. Results look good thus far.

[Tom_Kline 124]

Here is another image treated similarly from earlier in the day when more ambient light was present. The blowup in this case is on the left. The teeth of the male are critically sharp (blowup) but the scale pattern gradually gets soft going towards the left edge, but not all that bad. Also at f/9. I left the camera settings the same all day but did tilt the housing down a bit as it became apparent where the redd was (so the focusing oval would be on it) - I checked the battery level of the strobe (Seacam 250D) when I did this!

[maelstrom 0]

And your conclusions are??? I was just about to order the 16-35mm f2.8 for my upcoming Galapagos trip when I heard about this lens. Greatly interested in any comparison.

 

Hal

[Tom_Kline 124]

And your conclusions are??? I was just about to order the 16-35mm f2.8 for my upcoming Galapagos trip when I heard about this lens. Greatly interested in any comparison.

 

Hal

No more in the way of conclusions than what I stated above. Have stayed with the 55mm port extension, which is what Seacam HQ recommends for the 16-35/2.8 II lens but not what Stephen Frink recommends for it. Looking forward to S.F.'s analysis of the 16-35 IS. 16mm is stretching it a bit for the superdome, which was designed for 18mm. Have not shot any other Canon made UWA rectilinear lenses so comparison not possible. The new lens is to replace my Sigma 20 and 28mm f/1.8 lenses. The new lens does appear to focus faster than these. Have you read Roger Cicala's reports? Here is a more recent shot. Done at f/8.

Tom

[StephenFrink 9]

No more in the way of conclusions than what I stated above. Have stayed with the 55mm port extension, which is what Seacam HQ recommends for the 16-35/2.8 II lens but not what Stephen Frink recommends for it. Looking forward to S.F.'s analysis of the 16-35 IS. 16mm is stretching it a bit for the superdome, which was designed for 18mm. Have not shot any other Canon made UWA rectilinear lenses so comparison not possible. The new lens is to replace my Sigma 20 and 28mm f/1.8 lenses. The new lens does appear to focus faster than these. Have you read Roger Cicala's reports? Here is a more recent shot. Done at f/8.

Tom

Tom - That's a really lovely shot ... congratulations! I haven't done any testing on the new 16-35 F4, and have no reason to doubt the port extension suggestions that SEACAM Austria suggests. I personally have the 16-35 II, and Canon Professional Services didn't have loaners on the F4 version last time I asked. But, I'm off the road for a while now so maybe I can put the testing back on my radar. BTW ... the Superdome is a far better solution it appears (and we would expect) than the wideport. Thanks for sharing Tom.

[Tom_Kline 124]

Tom - That's a really lovely shot ... congratulations! I haven't done any testing on the new 16-35 F4, and have no reason to doubt the port extension suggestions that SEACAM Austria suggests. I personally have the 16-35 II, and Canon Professional Services didn't have loaners on the F4 version last time I asked. But, I'm off the road for a while now so maybe I can put the testing back on my radar. BTW ... the Superdome is a far better solution it appears (and we would expect) than the wideport. Thanks for sharing Tom.

 

Thank you! Looking forward to your test results. Thus far I used the wideport only for the initial shots in the creek that was just inches deep (post #7, above). The pix taken since with this lens have all been done with the superdome thanks in part to all the rain we have had recently (very dry earlier) so most creeks have been deep.