Canon 16-35MM F4 IS or 16-35MM 2.8?

[Cheekysascha]

I'm mainly shooting adventure stuff like campfire nights, landscapes and "journey" pictures so I'm looking for something a bit more flexible then my Canon 14mm 2.8

So to those of you who bought the F4 IS version over the 2.8? did the loss of light effect your photography in any way? & is there any other advantage to the F4 IS version besides IS and the much better sharpness that everyone says it has?

 

[JonAustin]

The IS and extra sharpness you mentioned (along with the lower price) were all the features I needed to choose this over the 16-35/2.8, when I was upgrading from my 17-40.

The IS (more than) compensates for the one stop of light lost, and DoF isn't usually as great an issue in UWA applications.

I would think that the only downsides would be (a) you absolutely need the extra stop or (b) slightly slower AF.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm mainly shooting adventure stuff like campfire nights

The IS (more than) compensates for the one stop of light lost

To me, 'campfire nights' says people – often moving people – and IS does nothing at all to compensate for subject motion, only camera shake.

Cheekysascha, look over your 14/2.8 images, what proportion of them are at f/2.8 - f/4 and a shutter speed you would not want slower by 1-3 stops?

Personally, I sold my 16-35/2.8L II and considered the 16-35/4L IS (because very few of my shots fell into the above category), but I decided to get the TS-E 17 instead.

 

[bhf3737]

I have both. The f/2.8 version produces images with warmer color suitable for landscape photography but has soft edges, that may be problem for panoramic photos. The f/4 is sharper both at the center and corners. On a 5DSr I have found f/4 focusing faster. The f/4 is also lighter and has standard 77mm filter instead of 82mm of f/2.8. Overall, I have found f/4 staying on the camera more but I sometimes miss the color rendering of the f/2.8.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have both. The f/2.8 version produces images with warmer color suitable for landscape photography but has soft edges, that may be problem for panoramic photos. The f/4 is sharper both at the center and corners. On a 5DSr I have found f/4 focusing faster. The f/4 is also lighter and has standard 77mm filter instead of 82mm of f/2.8. Overall, I have found f/4 staying on the camera more but I sometimes miss the color rendering of the f/2.8.

So make a custom profile for the f4 to match the colours of the f2.8, it is digital you know, there is no 'natural' colour or 'intrinsic' nature to a digital capture, it is all recorded in red green or blue and demosaiced.

As for the OP, I moved from the f2.8 to the f4 (and then on to the 11-24) the only time I mossed the f2.8 was dark wedding receptions, other than that the f4 blows the f2.8 away in every metric, it is a stunningly good UWA zoom.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

When you compare both lenses at f/5.6, there is little difference. If you need f/2.8, there is little choice. IS helps for video, but realistically, for people that move, it is of little help.

Get the one that works for you, they are both good lenses.

 

[d]

To me, 'campfire nights' says people – often moving people – and IS does nothing at all to compensate for subject motion, only camera shake.

Cheekysascha, look over your 14/2.8 images, what proportion of them are at f/2.8 - f/4 and a shutter speed you would not want slower by 1-3 stops?

Personally, I sold my 16-35/2.8L II and considered the 16-35/4L IS (because very few of my shots fell into the above category), but I decided to get the TS-E 17 instead.

This.

Personally, I'd be looking for any excuse *not* to buy the 16-35 2.8 - it's corners are soft as others have mentioned, and it's about due for an update anyway (rumoured to be not far away, though don't go making too many choices based on rumours!).

Here's another thing to look at when reviewing your images....if you do have a few shots at 2.8 with the 14mm, have a look at the ISO they were shot at and ask yourself you'd still be happy with the IQ if they were shot a stop higher in ISO. If yes, then you've regained your stop lost going from 2.8 -> 4.

Cheers,
d.

 

[privatebydesign]

When you compare both lenses at f/5.6, there is little difference. If you need f/2.8, there is little choice. IS helps for video, but realistically, for people that move, it is of little help.

Get the one that works for you, they are both good lenses.

Tests be damned, one is a good lens the other is a great lens. The 2.8 is a compromised and old design, the f4 is a cutting edge design that completely outclasses all other Canon UWA zooms, even the 11-24, for image quality.

In my personal experience there is a clear difference in actual images in anything off center even at f8.

 

[monkey44]

QUOTE: Here's another thing to look at when reviewing your images....if you do have a few shots at 2.8 with the 14mm, have a look at the ISO they were shot at and ask yourself you'd still be happy with the IQ if they were shot a stop higher in ISO. If yes, then you've regained your stop lost going from 2.8 -> 4.


This is the answer you need to evaluate -- if you're not shooting at f2.8 often, then one stop means - well, not much. And depending on the camera, one stop higher ISO will not hurt the image much either. I've never shot with the f2.8, but own the f4, and it's truly a beauty.

 

[JonAustin]

The IS (more than) compensates for the one stop of light lost

To me, 'campfire nights' says people – often moving people – and IS does nothing at all to compensate for subject motion, only camera shake.

I guess I don't have all that much campfire photography experience (umm, none actually), but I imagined that the folks gathered 'round one wouldn't be moving all that much ... or all that fast.

In any event, as hinted at by d earlier, one can of course also compensate for the smaller maximum aperture by bumping up the ISO.

Back to our regularly scheduled program ...

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I have owned and used the original 16-35 f/2.8 ver. 1 for years. For all kinds of indoor, low light and outdoor stuff, campfires, etc. But even f/2.8 is too slow for campfires. I got a EF 28mm f/1.8 prime for campfires. Lately I've been trying to get used to a better 35 f/2 IS prime to replace it. I also like wide lenses so it's tough.

The point I'm making is that I LOVE the 16-35 f/2.8L ver. 1 and since I got the 16-35 f/4L IS a year ago, I rarely use the f/2.8. Because when I use the f/4L, I can bump the ISO a bit in camera and bump the exposure a bit in post and I'm done. The f/4 is a better lens and renders a better image.

If I'm in very low light, f/2.8 barely cuts it anyway. I reach for a faster prime lens and start working harder with keeping still, using manual focus and taking a LOT of shots. You can also maybe cool off a diffused/gelled flash 2-3 stops and get some interesting campfire shots.

BTW, don't go nuts on finding a fast L prime chasing better low light shots. I owned a 35 f/1.4 and 24 f/1.4 II while I was seeking the 'ultimate' campfire and dark environment lens and honestly, shooting things in darkness pretty much negates any advantage you get from a fast $1500+ prime lens. And once you get past f/1.8 the thinner DOF makes it difficult to get much in focus anyway. And focusing in the dark, often manually, can be a bitch. Just get the fastest EF you can afford in the focal length that works best for you at the campfires and call it done. Then use the great 16-35 f/4 IS for everything else... indoor, etc.

Have fun and let us know what you decide. Share a few pics! Yay!

 

[pwp]

I dumped the 16-35 f/2.8II for the f/4is a couple of months ago.
All I can say is "at last"...a Canon L UWA zoom that I can trust on any type of job or project. Love it.

-pw

 

[niels123]

I have owned and used the original 16-35 f/2.8 ver. 1 for years. For all kinds of indoor, low light and outdoor stuff, campfires, etc. But even f/2.8 is too slow for campfires. I got a EF 28mm f/1.8 prime for campfires. Lately I've been trying to get used to a better 35 f/2 IS prime to replace it. I also like wide lenses so it's tough.

The point I'm making is that I LOVE the 16-35 f/2.8L ver. 1 and since I got the 16-35 f/4L IS a year ago, I rarely use the f/2.8. Because when I use the f/4L, I can bump the ISO a bit in camera and bump the exposure a bit in post and I'm done. The f/4 is a better lens and renders a better image.

If I'm in very low light, f/2.8 barely cuts it anyway. I reach for a faster prime lens and start working harder with keeping still, using manual focus and taking a LOT of shots. You can also maybe cool off a diffused/gelled flash 2-3 stops and get some interesting campfire shots.

BTW, don't go nuts on finding a fast L prime chasing better low light shots. I owned a 35 f/1.4 and 24 f/1.4 II while I was seeking the 'ultimate' campfire and dark environment lens and honestly, shooting things in darkness pretty much negates any advantage you get from a fast $1500+ prime lens. And once you get past f/1.8 the thinner DOF makes it difficult to get much in focus anyway. And focusing in the dark, often manually, can be a bitch. Just get the fastest EF you can afford in the focal length that works best for you at the campfires and call it done. Then use the great 16-35 f/4 IS for everything else... indoor, etc.

Have fun and let us know what you decide. Share a few pics! Yay!

Did you look into the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART? I own it and it is really quite sharp wide open already. At f/1.6 or f/1.8 it is tag sharp It is extremely usuable wide open and f/1.4 is much more convenient than f/2 or f/2.8.

 

[Zv]

I don't have any experience with the 16-35 f/2.8 but I have used my fair share of UWA lenses and the 16-35 f/4 brings a huge smile to my face every time I use it! This is the lens I've always wanted!

Unless you're doing run and gun photojournalism or weddings I can't see much of a benefit of the f/2.8 over the f/4 IS.

The image stabilization is a lot more useful than you expect it to be. When I'm all worked up and in the zone I often forget all about good technique (not sure it was there to begin with ) but the IS saves the day! Even if it's just to get a quick test shot before setting up the tripod, saves time with composition. And those places where a tripod just wouldn't be practical? Down to about 1s you can get a relatively usable shot if you brace yourself, maybe longer if the camera is balanced on something solid. With the f/2.8 you'd be at around 1/30s which even wide open is gonna push the ISO higher than a 1s shot at f/4. Heck you can shoot f/8 in the dark handheld if you want! (YMMV)

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I'm mainly shooting adventure stuff like campfire nights, landscapes and "journey" pictures so I'm looking for something a bit more flexible then my Canon 14mm 2.8

So to those of you who bought the F4 IS version over the 2.8? did the loss of light effect your photography in any way? & is there any other advantage to the F4 IS version besides IS and the much better sharpness that everyone says it has?

I like the contrast produced by the 16-35/4L IS, its sharpness, color rendering, weight & portability and IS. It is the perfect landscape lens. For campfires, you have to stop down a little bit (around f4-5.6) anyway to get more people in focus, since DOF for f/2.8 could be too shallow.
I had the 16-35/2.8L II and sold it to buy the newest lens with IS.

 

[SPL]

Just my two cents….

I owned the 17-40mm for several years and always felt that it was quite soft. I sold it, and replaced it with the 16-35/4L IS. I am very happy with the 16-35/4L IS. The IQ is fantastic and the IS comes in handy (which I thought I would never use…).

 

[Cheekysascha]

All of you guys make good points, besides even if I get the 16-35mm f4 is I still will have the 14mm 2.8 ii for low light wide angle stuff, however with the ton of rumors about the 16-35mm 2.8 iii coming out how much would you guys estimate that lens will cost? & should i wait for it and save my money /wait for it and buy the 16-35mm f4 is now?

 

[privatebydesign]

A MkIII f2.8 will cost more than twice as much as the superb f4, so is one stop in this focal length range and no IS worth an extra $1,500 to you? That is the second question, the first is, if this MkIII comes (and it must do sooner or later) when will that be?

Used f4 IS's sell for good money, the cost of ownership is almost negligible.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Buy the f/4 now, sell it later. L lenses hold their value well and I estimate (based on my own experience) that depending on what you pay for the f/4, if you sell it in a year or two you will probably only lose approx. $100 - $300 for the privilege of using it for that time. Pretty decent "exclusive rental" cost if you ask me.

If you buy it used it will cost you less later when you sell it. Try to buy one with the box and accessories and that helps sell it later (larger market) unless you get a super great price for a lens only deal.

 

[LovePhotography]

I'm mainly shooting adventure stuff like campfire nights, landscapes and "journey" pictures so I'm looking for something a bit more flexible then my Canon 14mm 2.8

So to those of you who bought the F4 IS version over the 2.8? did the loss of light effect your photography in any way? & is there any other advantage to the F4 IS version besides IS and the much better sharpness that everyone says it has?

Most people sitting around campfires are essentially motionless. I had the 2.8 and *hated* it. First Canon lens I've hated. Took some once in a lifetime graduation ceremony photos, and they we NOT good. First time in a while I was mad at an inanimate object. Perhaps I had a particularly bad copy. BUT, I've been as pleased with the f/4 as I was displeased with the f/2.8. Just my 2 cents.