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

[MrFotoFool]

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]

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.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Thanks to all for input. I just purchased a used Canon 16-35 f4L in EX+ condition from Adorama. I had decided on the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 but changed my mind at the last minute on the factors listed below, which was confirmed by this comparison video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmdqOD9zKnk

1) Canon weighs almost half as much and better ergonomics (larger zoom and focus ring that turn the "right" way for Canon)

2) Canon is name brand so no current or future compatibility issues

3) Canon takes 77mm filters (same as I have now) while Tamron does not take srew-in filters due to bulbous front element (which is also more prone to flare as video shows)

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Hope you are as happy with your 16-35 F4 as I am with mine!

 

[docsmith]

Enjoy. It is a great lens.

 

[MrFotoFool]

It arrived today and honestly it looks brand new. It has all the original packaging and was wrapped just like a new one would be. (It even has that goofy lens pouch that I will never use). There is not the slightest mark anywhere - I wonder if the previous owner even used it at all? I have bought used lenses before and they were always good but this is immaculate. The next two days are my days off work so I hope to test it out and maybe post something in the lens gallery.

 

[kaptainkatsu]

I have the f4 and its amazing. It is my favorite lens and generally stays on my body.

Like others have said, unless you need 2.8, I would get the 4

 

[slclick]

The f/4. It also takes decently sized and priced filters. I was also pleasantly surprised how light it is after using smallish primes for wide for so long, the weight hasn't been an issue.