Canon 16-35mm F4IS vs. EF24-105mm test

Last week I picked my copy of the new EF16-35mm F4IS.  I decided to test it against my EF24-105mm which outperformed my old 16-35mm F2.8L,  which I recently sold, in the overlapping focal lengths.  I was curious to see how the new lens would stack up against the 24-105mm. 

To view the test go here Lens Test

Thanks for the sample images. Seems like the 4/16-35 is a clear winner and much closer to the EF 2.8/24-70L II than the 4/24-105.

Markus

It seems that the main difference is that the 24-105 is showing some chromatic aberration, which should be correctable during raw conversion. Did you try and correct for that during raw conversion?

Roger

Roger,

I didn't correct for CA during the conversion..

Got my lens today. First tests for corner sharpness are very good (tested on a 1DX).

This lens is a clear winner and finally(!) Canon has produced a great super wide-angle lens for landscape photography. f/4 is perfect for me as it reduces weight and price and I normally shoot at f/8-f/16 anyway.

Markus

Markus Jais wrote:Got my lens today. First tests for corner sharpness are very good (tested on a 1DX).

Markus

Enjoy Markus!

I had a very sharp copy of a 24-105 lens that I sold a few months ago to make room for the new 24-70 MkII. It was able to hold its own against the 24 TSE MkII which is saying a lot. My old 17-40 f4 is a good lens but my go to lens for ultra wide images is the Nikon 14-24 with an adapter. It is painful to use but the results are stellar.

I am glad there is a good alternative now.

Thanks Robert, the new lens sure looks better.

Pradeep

Primus wrote:I had a very sharp copy of a 24-105 lens that I sold a few months ago to make room for the new 24-70 MkII. It was able to hold its own against the 24 TSE MkII which is saying a lot. My old 17-40 f4 is a good lens but my go to lens for ultra wide images is the Nikon 14-24 with an adapter. It is painful to use but the results are stellar.

I am glad there is a good alternative now.

Thanks Robert, the new lens sure looks better.

Pradeep

I've thought long and hard about the 14-24mm Nikkor but dreaded the adapter and filtering it.  For now the Rokinon 14mm and the new Canon should serve me well.  Maybe someday Canon will bring something out like the 14-24mm

D. Robert Franz wrote:

Primus wrote:I had a very sharp copy of a 24-105 lens that I sold a few months ago to make room for the new 24-70 MkII. It was able to hold its own against the 24 TSE MkII which is saying a lot. My old 17-40 f4 is a good lens but my go to lens for ultra wide images is the Nikon 14-24 with an adapter. It is painful to use but the results are stellar.

I am glad there is a good alternative now.

Thanks Robert, the new lens sure looks better.

Pradeep

I've thought long and hard about the 14-24mm Nikkor but dreaded the adapter and filtering it.  For now the Rokinon 14mm and the new Canon should serve me well.  Maybe someday Canon will bring something out like the 14-24mm

Yes, the filter system is a real pain, but what I've seen so far has been really good. I tried the filter a couple of times but it is quite fiddly. Without a filter (night sky etc) it is a superb lens. I also used it on the Sony A7R and it works really well with that body too.

Pradeep