February 18, 2018, 12:45:12 AM

Author Topic: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS  (Read 2971 times)

Act444

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 780
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2018, 06:29:23 PM »
I can’t speak for the 17-40 but I found the 16-35 2.8 II to be an average lens at best. It was my first UWA, so while the range was cool, I never truly enjoyed the images I got out of that lens. I found the corner/off-center sharpness to be lacking.

When the f4 IS came out, I traded in the old 2.8 for it. The IS and the vastly superior IQ more than made up for the loss of stop. I’d still have it now if it weren’t for a sweet deal on version III of the 2.8 (refurb) that I took advantage of a couple months ago...

Unless you NEED f2.8, the f4 IS is the better lens (compared to 2.8 II) in every which way. IMO of course.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 06:31:49 PM by Act444 »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2018, 06:29:23 PM »

StoicalEtcher

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2018, 04:02:50 PM »
I can’t speak for the 17-40 but I found the 16-35 2.8 II to be an average lens at best. It was my first UWA, so while the range was cool, I never truly enjoyed the images I got out of that lens. I found the corner/off-center sharpness to be lacking.

When the f4 IS came out, I traded in the old 2.8 for it. The IS and the vastly superior IQ more than made up for the loss of stop. I’d still have it now if it weren’t for a sweet deal on version III of the 2.8 (refurb) that I took advantage of a couple months ago...

Unless you NEED f2.8, the f4 IS is the better lens (compared to 2.8 II) in every which way. IMO of course.

Out of interest Act444, how do you find the MkIII compares against the f/4 (excluding the ability to open to f/2.8 ) ?  Is there much else to choose between them?
EOS5 (film) , 5D and 5D mkIII, and almost enough lenses

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6236
  • USM > STM
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2018, 04:48:56 PM »
Unless you NEED f2.8, the f4 IS is the better lens (compared to 2.8 II) in every which way. IMO of course.

+1. 

Also consider the 16-35 f/2.8L II requires 82mm filters and has no IS.

If you shoot events / sports / action --> get the f/2.8L II.

If you shoot landscapes / video / handheld low light --> get the f/4L IS.

If you shoot astro --> get neither.  (Canon hasn't licked UWA + fast + coma free + low vignetting yet.)

- A

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 6236
  • USM > STM
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2018, 04:52:49 PM »
Out of interest Act444, how do you find the MkIII compares against the f/4 (excluding the ability to open to f/2.8 ) ?  Is there much else to choose between them?

The f/2.8L III is that extra bit sharper -- it's quite a lens.

However, note that vignetting is staggering at 16mm f/2.8, in excess of 4 stops.  It's correctable in post, of course, but boosting the corners of an already high ISO file by 4 additional stops (say, for astro) is not super desirable.

- A

StoicalEtcher

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2018, 12:13:25 PM »
Out of interest Act444, how do you find the MkIII compares against the f/4 (excluding the ability to open to f/2.8 ) ?  Is there much else to choose between them?

The f/2.8L III is that extra bit sharper -- it's quite a lens.

However, note that vignetting is staggering at 16mm f/2.8, in excess of 4 stops.  It's correctable in post, of course, but boosting the corners of an already high ISO file by 4 additional stops (say, for astro) is not super desirable.

- A

Thanks for the feedback Adam,
Stoical.
EOS5 (film) , 5D and 5D mkIII, and almost enough lenses

MrFotoFool

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 742
  • 5D mkIV
    • HoodFineArt
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2018, 10:48:46 AM »
I have pretty much decided on the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 SP and am waiting for a trade-in from KEH (who are being very slow). However today Sigma announced the new 12-24 f2.8 Art, which gives me another option to consider. I wonder how long it will be before they announce pricing and availability and how long before testers start posting reviews?

gruhl28

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
  • Canon 70D
Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2018, 11:49:48 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/

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.

Isn't Tilt/Shift the only way to avoid keystoning? I don't think any standard wide angle lens can avoid keystoning.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2018, 11:49:48 AM »