Advice 16-35 f2.8 version 2(not 3) vs 16-35 f4 IS

[MrFotoFool]

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?

 

[MrFotoFool]

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).

 

[Daan Stam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If you use full frame sensor, I would go with the f4 with the Advantage of IS and the use of filters (like lee...).

 

[GN Photos]

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

 

[Ozarker]

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.

 

[awair]

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.

 

[bholliman]

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.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

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.

 

[mariuspavel]

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

 

[StoicalEtcher]

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.

 

[Geek]

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!

 

[Act444]

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.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

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?

 

[ahsanford]

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]

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]

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.