February 23, 2018, 07:36:34 PM

Author Topic: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS  (Read 3438 times)

MrFotoFool

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 746
  • 5D mkIV
    • HoodFineArt
Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« on: January 19, 2018, 11:39:36 PM »
Several months ago I picked up a used copy of the 17-40 f4L, my first ultra wide lens. It is fine but corner sharpness is bad, which I somewhat expected. I will likely replace with a 16-35L.

I cannot afford the new version 3 of the 16-35 f2.8 (as stellar as it reportedly is). I will have to choose between a used version 2 of the f2.8 or a new f4 IS (both sell for around a thousand bucks).

I know from reviews the f4 is better optically in the corners and I will likely go that way, though I would love f2.8. I am wondering if anyone has experience using both the version 2 of 16-35 f2.8 and the 17-40 f4 that I have now. Are they the same optically (especially in corners) or is the version 2 f2.8 better?

canon rumors FORUM

Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« on: January 19, 2018, 11:39:36 PM »

MrFotoFool

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 746
  • 5D mkIV
    • HoodFineArt
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2018, 11:58:05 PM »
Here is an article discussing all three lenses I mentioned: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=18767
However there is nothing definitive in the article that really helps me. However I will likely go with the f4IS due to increased sharpness and image stabilization, since I will often use it for indoor scenes without a tripod (cathedrals, aquariums, etc).

daaningrid

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 63
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2018, 06:05:40 AM »
Like they are saying buy the f4 if you dont need the depth of field and low light capabilities of the f2.8. The f4 is A Lot sharper with more modern optics and the huge bonus of IS. With the added sharpness of the f4 you could even use de-noise to equalize the lenses in low light conditions.

you are probably not looking for another option but you could also look at the tamron 15-30 2.8 VC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdaGDNS5HiQ&t=29s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebckv0kJrDs&t=95s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux_ff8dpZ34&list=PLwWFV2kake9FTkDd6ss3L4auLgQOIGcMe&index=5 (best sharpness comparison)

BillB

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 374
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2018, 07:28:14 AM »
Like they are saying buy the f4 if you dont need the depth of field and low light capabilities of the f2.8. The f4 is A Lot sharper with more modern optics and the huge bonus of IS. With the added sharpness of the f4 you could even use de-noise to equalize the lenses in low light conditions.

you are probably not looking for another option but you could also look at the tamron 15-30 2.8 VC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdaGDNS5HiQ&t=29s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebckv0kJrDs&t=95s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ux_ff8dpZ34&list=PLwWFV2kake9FTkDd6ss3L4auLgQOIGcMe&index=5 (best sharpness comparison)

Tamron is heavier than the Canons and has a front lens that sticks out so it can't take front filters, which would be a showstopper for me.  I have the Canon f4 IS, and am very happy with it.  For me, the IS more than makes up for the extra lens stop of the F2.8. 

MrFotoFool

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 746
  • 5D mkIV
    • HoodFineArt
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2018, 11:08:08 AM »
Thanks for replies. I watched most of the third link (Dustin Abbot) which confirms the older Canon f2.8 is not worth it. However the Tamron 15-30 is impressive and gives me something to think about, though I am still leaning towards the Canon f4.

MrFotoFool

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 746
  • 5D mkIV
    • HoodFineArt
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2018, 11:22:30 AM »
I found this (text) comparison from Dustin Abbot who says for astro photography (which I do every once in a while), the Tamron f2.8 is even better than the Canon f4L! Now I am really looking at the Tamron.
https://dustinabbott.net/2015/04/three-way-shootout-part-4-flare-astro-and-conclusions/

Bike_05

  • PowerShot SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 4
    • Foto Box
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2018, 01:58:57 PM »
If you use full frame sensor, I would go with the f4 with the Advantage of IS and the use of filters (like lee...).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2018, 01:58:57 PM »

GeoffN

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 20
  • Expect nothing, and you will never be disappointed
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2018, 02:24:25 PM »
If you like the idea of Canon L lenses, you might want to take a look at Canon USA Refurbished Lenses.  The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L Mk III USM is currently in stock for $1,759.20, with a one year warranty.  That is a price break of $439.80 less that a new lens.  I have purchased a few refurbished L lenses from Canon with no problems at all.  They look and perform just like a brand new lens.  They just do not come in a box that a new lens would be shipped.  Yes, the Tamron is a very good lens, f/2.8 with VC for $1,199.00 at B&H.  My response is just to let you know about the refurbished lenses the Canon offers.

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses

« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 02:44:00 PM by GeoffN »
Canon 5D Mk III+Grip, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, EF 1.4x III, EF 2x III, 430 EX II, 580 EX II

CanonFanBoy

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1853
  • Dang!
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2018, 03:36:09 PM »
I found this (text) comparison from Dustin Abbot who says for astro photography (which I do every once in a while), the Tamron f2.8 is even better than the Canon f4L! Now I am really looking at the Tamron.
https://dustinabbott.net/2015/04/three-way-shootout-part-4-flare-astro-and-conclusions/

I have the Tamron and it is an excellent lens. Just don't forget that if you use filters it will cost you. All that said: When I went to the camera shop in Las Vegas I went with the intention of getting the Canon 11-24. I'd read reviews of both lenses and from those I felt safe getting the Tamron at that big price difference.

If I had it to do over again which would I pick? The Canon. Why? From what I understand there is no keystoning at all. That's huge to me. I somehow missed that very important tidbit.

I can't speak to the other lenses, but there are a lot of people here that really like the 16-35 f/4.

5D Mark III, Tamron SP 15-30 f/2.8 Di VC, 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, 9 (so far) m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR, 600EX-RT (x7), Streaklight 360ws.

awair

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
    • AWAIR photography
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2018, 04:08:28 PM »
I have a very uninformed opinion, and would be most grateful if someone could clarify/confirm.

I tend to prefer the faster lenses, for lower light and faster shutter speeds. Sometimes this option is prohibitively expensive, so I've convinced myself (with data from dxomark) that I should really be considering the ’t-stop' instead.

For example the 24-70/4L seems to be only half a stop slower than the 2.8L II (4.0 vs 3.4)? While the 16-35/4L does not make quite as good a comparison, there still seems to be less than 1-stop in it.

Am I fundamentally misunderstanding this? Is the data reliable?

As I said, an uninformed opinion, but I'm very happy with both of these /4Ls. Smaller, lighter, easier to hold, with IS being more of an advantage than I had initially believed.
Canonet>FX3>AE1>T90>S10>20D>7D>7D2>6D>1D X & 100D
135/2L, 300/4L, 70-200/2.8L

bholliman

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1455
    • [color=blue]Flick[/color][color=red]r[/color]
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2018, 04:14:11 PM »
The answer somewhat depends on what you shoot.  The image stabilization of the 16-35 f/4 IS is excellent and allows hand holding at really long shutter speeds.  This is great for non-moving subjects.  I've been able to get some sharp waterfall shots (the surrounding landscape sharp - not the water!) with that lens handheld at a full second by bracing myself against a tree when I didn't have a tripod available.  The 16-35 f/2.8 II is not as good optically, but if you are shooting events or low light situations with moving subjects, the wider max aperture might be more important.

« Last Edit: February 03, 2018, 02:48:12 PM by bholliman »
5DsR, EF Lenses: 35mm f/2IS, Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC, 300mm f/2.8L II IS, 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8LII, 70-200mm f/2.8LII
M5, EF-M lenses: 22mm f/2, 18-150mm
https://www.flickr.com/photos/68928679@N05

johnf3f

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 852
  • Canon 1Dx
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2018, 06:17:32 PM »
I used to have the 17-40 and loved it - but it is certainly not the sharpest tool in the box! Having said that it renders colour beautifully to my eyes. I have used a friend's 16-35 F2.8 L Mk2 and it is a very nice lens but it didn't blow my socks off! Note I rarely go more open than F5.6 except, sometimes, for old church interiors.
For me the one that really stands out is my 16-35 F 4 L IS as it renders colours like my 17-40 did but with full frame sharpness and much less distortion at the short end - in other words a VERY good lens in it's price range. I can't comment on the IS as I don't use it/don't need it.

I did also have a brief play with the Canon 16-35 F2.8 Mk3 and to me it is just lens porn! I loved the build quality/handling and didn't care about the weight. However, on my 1DX, I could see no worthwhile IQ improvement - perhaps on a 5DsR/5D4 things may be different.

For practical purposes, at not too silly money, I believe the 16-35 F4 L IS to be the best of the bunch overall.

Just my 2p.
Canon 1DX, 7D2, 16-35 F4 L IS, 24-70 F2.8 V2, 100 F2.8 Macro, 100-400 L IS Mk2, 300 F2.8 L IS, 800 F5.6 L IS, Holga Pinhole lens.

mariuspavel

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 14
  • Chase the light!
    • Fotograf nunta
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2018, 02:09:50 PM »
I've had 16-35 f/2.8  L II for two years. It is a good lens, great mechanic, not so good opticaly. Mushy in the corners even at f4. This is the reason I bought last year F4 IS. Very good opticaly, well mad like 24-70 f2.8/4 L
5D Mark IV| 6D | C100 Mark II | 35 f/1.4 L II | 85 f/1.4 L IS | 50 1.8 STM | 16-35 f/4 L IS | 24-70 f/2.8 L II | 24-70 f4 IS | 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
Fotograf Nunta | Albume de nunta

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2018, 02:09:50 PM »

StoicalEtcher

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2018, 03:41:52 PM »
I can add to the recommendations for the 16-35 f/4 - it is an extremely good lens, very sharp and really well built too - think of it as an alternate to the f/2.8 rather than some cheaper option.

I had (& still have) the 17-40 and had MkII 16-35.   For me, the f/4 is in a different league to both of those.  The 17-40 is a lighter, and more modestly priced, item but once you use the 16-35 f/4, I don't think you'd look back.

I can't speak to the f/2.8 MkIII, but I think the f/4 is the best option of your choices.  The only thing it can't do is shoot wider than f/4, so you just have to consider how often you would really want to shoot at f2.8?  And if it is astro you're thinking of, there are better/faster primes you should look at.

Just my 2p.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 03:45:49 PM by StoicalEtcher »
EOS5 (film) , 5D and 5D mkIII, and almost enough lenses

Geek

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 32
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2018, 01:22:17 PM »
Personally, I don't have any of the 16-35 F2.8 versions and I don't think I would want one after using the 16-35 F4.  Like the others have said unless you really need F2.8, you can't go wrong with the F4 version of the lens.  It is a great sharp lens.  I bought mine to take to Israel and Jordan last year.

All I can say is impressive!
EOS 7D mark II, EOS 40D, EF 16-35 f4L, EF 24-105 f4L IS, EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 100-400L II, EF-S 18-135 STM, EF 28-135, EF 70-300, 580EX II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #14 on: January 29, 2018, 01:22:17 PM »