16-35 F/2.8 vs F/4 for weddings

[Bakje]

Hi

I'm looking to invest in a wide-angle lens, both for landscape and wedding/event photography. The new 16-35 F/4 looks like a beautiful lens with great IQ potential, but I'm still trying to decide if it's the way to go. Here are my thoughts so far:

1. The IS is not needed for landscape, but can be really handy for weddings/events.

2. The IQ of the F/4 seems to be better than the F/2.8, but I'm just basing myself on what I've seen in comments and such (no hands-on experience).

3. The F/2.8 has a stop more light, though, which is important on events and such (many low-light situations).

I currently use a 5DIII, which has quite a good high ISO performance, and that is what is actually causing me to be undecided on which lens to take. A lens, when used "normally", will last decades. The 5DIII already has good high ISO perf, and that is likely to improve even more with the Mark IV and other cameras down the line. So the question is: can I compensate that stop of light with ISO and go for a higher IQ + IS long term investment with the F/4? Or will that one stop of light still be crucial for AF and such and will the F/2.8 remain the lens to beat now and in the future?

 

[Ruined]

Will answer more in depth later,but in short the f/2.8 II is the better lens for events by a landslide. F/2.8 is critical and IS is useless for events at this focal length. F/4 IQ will be mangled by high isos in dim light as it lets in half the light.

 

[mackguyver]

I would generally agree with Ruined on this for general events but as many wedding photos (other than the dance and processional) are of rather still subjects, f/4 might suffice. I know many wedding shooters have used the 24-105 f/4 for years, so for weddings, I think it might work.

For landscapes, I expect (and hope as I have one on the way) that the new f/4 IS will be amazing.

For events in very low light (i.e. at night outdoors with minimal lighting) or ANY event where people are moving at any speed beyond a very slow walk, f/2.8 is critical, and I've often found f/2.8 too slow, preferring to use the 24 f/1.4 II and 50 f/1.4 or 1.2 and 135 f/2. Let me show you some examples of people walking at a normal pace and the effect that 1 stop can have - both were shot with the 5DII.

Here's a shot at f/2.8 & 1/25s and note the motion blur on the right side of the frame:

And another at f/2 & 1/50s - see how the one stop made a world of difference?

 

[tayassu]

I would wait a little bit for the new 2.8 wide angle zoom and hope that it is a 16-35/2.8 IS at a relatively reasonable pricepoint. : Otherwise you will kick yourself for buying a compromise too early. If it is not, you can still buy another lens.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I've noticed that a lot of 24-105 f4 LIS wedding shooters, they are either in a sunny part of the world or they use a lot of flash. I have nothing against using a flash and there's a lot of really good photographers out there with amazing flash useage. It's just not my style. I prefer the available light approach and certainly one I aspire towards. Although there's often one wedding per season which needs some extra lighting, even with f1.2 glass and iso 6400!

I used to use a 17-40L but found that the extra stop was really needed for the light levels I encountered on UK weddings. I don't know how this translates to weddings in your area. But a lot of guys get by with a 24-70 f2.8 as their main lens and i've seen a lot of strong work using that range.

The 17-40L f4 came to the market in may 2003, while the 16-35 f2.8 mkI was still widely available. In fact that lens stayed on the market for some time and was eventually replaced with the mkII in April 2007. Which brought the f2.8 version upto the f4 design and optical standards. So I'm assuming a simular thing will happen with the 16-35 III L? Give it a few years and Canon will probably release an updated version with simular mft charts as the f4 variant.

 

[RLPhoto]

I would generally agree with Ruined on this for general events but as many wedding photos (other than the dance and processional) are of rather still subjects, f/4 might suffice. I know many wedding shooters have used the 24-105 f/4 for years, so for weddings, I think it might work.

For landscapes, I expect (and hope as I have one on the way) that the new f/4 IS will be amazing.

For events in very low light (i.e. at night outdoors with minimal lighting) or ANY event where people are moving at any speed beyond a very slow walk, f/2.8 is critical, and I've often found f/2.8 too slow, preferring to use the 24 f/1.4 II and 50 f/1.4 or 1.2 and 135 f/2. Let me show you some examples of people walking at a normal pace and the effect that 1 stop can have - both were shot with the 5DII.

Here's a shot at f/2.8 & 1/25s and note the motion blur on the right side of the frame:

And another at f/2 & 1/50s - see how the one stop made a world of difference?

+1 I find f/2.8 can still be too slow in some of those cave receptions. That's when the 24L II and 50L become paired together.

However if your using flash @ 800 ISO, I can use an f/4 lens just fine but everything is not always in your favor if you end up with black ceilings.

 

[tomscott]

What other glass do you use? Do you need it?

I use the 24-70mm F2.8 and this season I have only got the 16-35mm out once for a large group shot where 24mm wasnt enough.

I bought the 16-35mm primarily for weddings but also for landscape work specifically night time. A wide angle is the go to lens for landscapes but isn't always the best option. I find I use 24-35mm more than 16-24mm unless you really need to fit a great deal in or accentuate a subject. Generally fitting more in the frame isn't always the best as it decompresses perspective so stand out elements appear further away add that to the human eye is around 35-40mm. It takes a lot of practise to use a wide angle lens properly.

The 24-70mm is sharper in the corners too.

I always thought the wide angle was a necessary piece of kit and have always had one but its probably the least used lens in my bag. Obviously depends how you shoot, but I find the distortion unflattering but the 2.8 is useful but obviously its heavier than the F4 and IS at this focal length is useful but not necessary. If you go by the rule minimum shutter is your focal length, 1/16th to 1/35th and you can shoot at 1/60th or above unless its very dark it makes the IS redundant. Also it might give you 4 stops but your subject will most certainly carry motion blur under 1/30th.

Useful lens but if your talking F4 vs F2.8 I would take F2.8 every time. F4 is fine until your in a church and find 6400ISO and F4 are still giving you 1/25th second its just not enough and you miss the kiss because of quick moving nervous bride and grooms creating blurry motion but your background will most probably be sharp. The 5DMKIII IMO isn't good enough past 6400ISO. The new 16-35 F4 looks promising but isn't night and day and being twice the price is the small increase in corner sharpness worth it?

Same situation with the 24-70mm F2.8 MI vs MII.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

If I were a wedding/event photographer I would go for the 16-35mm f2.8L II. There IS isn't as important as fast shutter speed.
I shot mostly landscape and still objects hence I am going to sell my f2.8L II and buy the new f4L IS. Normally I use in events, particularly in low light, the 24-70mm f2.8L and primes. My 16-35mm only leave home when shooting landscape.

 

[Ruined]

It looks like others have chimed in, but yeah agreed with most that the 16-35 f/2.8 II is better for weddings/events, while the 16-35 f/4 IS is better for landscape. Whichever you shoot more of should determine which you get. The IS isn't going to help you as mack demonstrated since camera shake will not be an issue at 1/50 or faster shutter since max focal length is 35mm, and any slower shutter than that will often buy you motion blur instead of camera shake.

As someone else mentioned, sometimes f/2.8 doesn't even let in enough light at weddings at which point busting out the 24L f/1.4 II might be needed. But, in most events f/2.8 will do the job while f/4 would probably require flash if used at an indoor event. I personally use a 24L on one body and a 50L on the other when f/2.8 is not wide enough.

I hate to rely on a flash as some places don't allow it and it may be intrusive, thus stick with the 16-35 f/2.8 II.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The 24-70mm is sharper in the corners too.

when ever has wedding client moaned or passed on a sale due to slightly soift corners? never....it doesn't happen and I've never lost or gained sales based on extream lens optics. The 16-35IIL offers clear advantages over the f4 variant for weddings...none of them are sharpness related. The modern obsession with lens charts and web site reviews over real world application and shooting is worrying.

 

[tomscott]

Before you jump down my throat.

If you read the post I was talking about how I use the lens not just for weddings but for landscape work and I was asking the question is it needed because when I'm out shooting landscape I shoot 24-35mm and for that the 24-70mm is sharper in the corners.

Giving some advice that may save money determining what range you shoot.

 

[memoriaphoto]

I would wait a little bit for the new 2.8 wide angle zoom and hope that it is a 16-35/2.8 IS at a relatively reasonable pricepoint. : Otherwise you will kick yourself for buying a compromise too early. If it is not, you can still buy another lens.

I think it'll be a 14-24/2.8, non IS

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I would wait a little bit for the new 2.8 wide angle zoom and hope that it is a 16-35/2.8 IS at a relatively reasonable pricepoint. : Otherwise you will kick yourself for buying a compromise too early. If it is not, you can still buy another lens.

I think it'll be a 14-24/2.8, non IS

I'm hoping for something a little wider like a 12-24mm f2.8. A 14mm isn't that much wider than a 16mm.

 

[Ruined]

I would wait a little bit for the new 2.8 wide angle zoom and hope that it is a 16-35/2.8 IS at a relatively reasonable pricepoint. : Otherwise you will kick yourself for buying a compromise too early. If it is not, you can still buy another lens.

I think it'll be a 14-24/2.8, non IS

I'm hoping for something a little wider like a 12-24mm f2.8. A 14mm isn't that much wider than a 16mm.

There was a patent not too long ago for a 11-24 f/4 lens from Canon. I would definitely pick that up as I could then use the 16-35mm f/2.8L II for events and the 11-24 f/4 for ultra wide landscape.

Here is the patent:
http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-patent-11-24mm-f4-lens/

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I would wait a little bit for the new 2.8 wide angle zoom and hope that it is a 16-35/2.8 IS at a relatively reasonable pricepoint. : Otherwise you will kick yourself for buying a compromise too early. If it is not, you can still buy another lens.

I think it'll be a 14-24/2.8, non IS

I'm hoping for something a little wider like a 12-24mm f2.8. A 14mm isn't that much wider than a 16mm.

There was a patent not too long ago for a 11-24 f/4 lens from Canon. I would definitely pick that up as I could then use the 16-35mm f/2.8L II for events and the 11-24 f/4 for ultra wide landscape.

Here is the patent:
http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-patent-11-24mm-f4-lens/

I hear what you are saying, but I've seen patents for a 11-24mm f4, a 12-24mm f2.8 and a 14-24mm f2.8.
So it's hard to predict which way Canon will go with their production lens. Unfortunatly patents are just a piece of conjecture...or paper. We won't know what's happening until it's announced.

 

[Bakje]

Thanks for all the great replies, and sorry for my late answer. Given what I've read here, and the things I've seen on other sites, f/2.8 is still te way to go if you want to do events. Here's hoping the price of the "old" Mk II will drop after the release of the f/4.

 

[privatebydesign]

If you limit yourself to available light, a very dying breed nowadays, and you anticipate very low light levels where iso 5000 with a 5D MkIII won't cut it (macguyver's example was only at 2500 and f2.8) which is basically three stops over the best we used with film, then the f2.8 is your choice.

But those situations are few and far between for most of us. The truth is there are way more options open for us now with wireless flashes and superb high iso performance than there ever was with fast film, if I was buying new today I'd do what macguyver just did and sell his 16-35 f2.8 and get the f4 IS. Sure there might be situations where that one stop won't work, but we now have options, if you get enough function work where f4 limits you get a 24 f1.4 or a 600-EX-RT and ST-E3-RT to augment it.

 

[mackguyver]

If you limit yourself to available light, a very dying breed nowadays, and you anticipate very low light levels where iso 5000 with a 5D MkIII won't cut it (macguyver's example was only at 2500 and f2.8) which is basically three stops over the best we used with film, then the f2.8 is your choice.

But those situations are few and far between for most of us. The truth is there are way more options open for us now with wireless flashes and superb high iso performance than there ever was with fast film, if I was buying new today I'd do what macguyver just did and sell his 16-35 f2.8 and get the f4 IS. Sure there might be situations where that one stop won't work, but we now have options, if you get enough function work where f4 limits you get a 24 f1.4 or a 600-EX-RT and ST-E3-RT to augment it.

Some good points, private, though I still think there's something unique (and better) about available light for event shooting, though I'd probably use lights for a wedding to avoid risking things. The new lens is definitely an improvement over the 2.8 II, but it doesn't make the 2.8 II a lousy lens and if f/2.8 were more important than sharper corners and lower CA, I'd go for the 2.8 II. For people who rarely shoot events, the f/4 IS is cheaper and better for everything else, and as you say, you can always add light

 

[privatebydesign]

If you limit yourself to available light, a very dying breed nowadays, and you anticipate very low light levels where iso 5000 with a 5D MkIII won't cut it (macguyver's example was only at 2500 and f2.8) which is basically three stops over the best we used with film, then the f2.8 is your choice.

But those situations are few and far between for most of us. The truth is there are way more options open for us now with wireless flashes and superb high iso performance than there ever was with fast film, if I was buying new today I'd do what macguyver just did and sell his 16-35 f2.8 and get the f4 IS. Sure there might be situations where that one stop won't work, but we now have options, if you get enough function work where f4 limits you get a 24 f1.4 or a 600-EX-RT and ST-E3-RT to augment it.

Some good points, private, though I still think there's something unique (and better) about available light for event shooting, though I'd probably use lights for a wedding to avoid risking things. The new lens is definitely an improvement over the 2.8 II, but it doesn't make the 2.8 II a lousy lens and if f/2.8 were more important than sharper corners and lower CA, I'd go for the 2.8 II. For people who rarely shoot events, the f/4 IS is cheaper and better for everything else, and as you say, you can always add light

I am a poor photographer, am still running the 16-35 f2.8 MkI, because we needed that with 800iso film!

I recently shot a wedding with a very dim reception, mood lighting was the term I think, dungeon would be more accurate, plus it was small with nowhere to put stands. I gelled a couple of 600-EX-RT's and put them on the tables and bounced off the ceiling, I also had one on camera, this made the weak DJ lights look much more effective and gave me enough fake ambient to work with my 1Ds MkIII's with their 1600iso limit (but I never go over 800 with them either).

I agree some shooters will always need more speed, but I'd advise any natural light specialists to go for 1.2-1.8 primes over 2.8-4 zooms anyway. I just get the feeling that there is a touch too much generalisation here from some people sometimes, we used to shoot 2.8 800iso images all the time, now many can easily shoot 5,000iso and that more than makes up for the one stop loss in lens speed for the same shutter speed value.

I really like your function examples, and you make the 2.8 point very well, but you could, if you had needed to, gone up one stop of iso, 2,000 to 4,000, and/or had a remote 600 popped into the canopy that would have blended well but not been obvious.

 

[mackguyver]

If you limit yourself to available light, a very dying breed nowadays, and you anticipate very low light levels where iso 5000 with a 5D MkIII won't cut it (macguyver's example was only at 2500 and f2.8) which is basically three stops over the best we used with film, then the f2.8 is your choice.

But those situations are few and far between for most of us. The truth is there are way more options open for us now with wireless flashes and superb high iso performance than there ever was with fast film, if I was buying new today I'd do what macguyver just did and sell his 16-35 f2.8 and get the f4 IS. Sure there might be situations where that one stop won't work, but we now have options, if you get enough function work where f4 limits you get a 24 f1.4 or a 600-EX-RT and ST-E3-RT to augment it.

Some good points, private, though I still think there's something unique (and better) about available light for event shooting, though I'd probably use lights for a wedding to avoid risking things. The new lens is definitely an improvement over the 2.8 II, but it doesn't make the 2.8 II a lousy lens and if f/2.8 were more important than sharper corners and lower CA, I'd go for the 2.8 II. For people who rarely shoot events, the f/4 IS is cheaper and better for everything else, and as you say, you can always add light

I am a poor photographer, am still running the 16-35 f2.8 MkI, because we needed that with 800iso film!

I recently shot a wedding with a very dim reception, mood lighting was the term I think, dungeon would be more accurate, plus it was small with nowhere to put stands. I gelled a couple of 600-EX-RT's and put them on the tables and bounced off the ceiling, I also had one on camera, this made the weak DJ lights look much more effective and gave me enough fake ambient to work with my 1Ds MkIII's with their 1600iso limit (but I never go over 800 with them either).

I agree some shooters will always need more speed, but I'd advise any natural light specialists to go for 1.2-1.8 primes over 2.8-4 zooms anyway. I just get the feeling that there is a touch too much generalisation here from some people sometimes, we used to shoot 2.8 800iso images all the time, now many can easily shoot 5,000iso and that more than makes up for the one stop loss in lens speed for the same shutter speed value.

I really like your function examples, and you make the 2.8 point very well, but you could, if you had needed to, gone up one stop of iso, 2,000 to 4,000, and/or had a remote 600 popped into the canopy that would have blended well but not been obvious.

A dungeon, eh? That's too funny, and always seems to happen when your client says the location is "well-lit" right? Based on DxO's measurements, the 16-35 MkI is still a nice lens, so I wouldn't be too sad. Going for the f/1.2 & 1.4 lenses is definitely the way to go if you want to get lots of the ambient and stop the motion for sure, but you still have thin DOF to deal with, even at f/2. I like the challenge and look of it, but wouldn't risk missing a shot at a wedding. I was at a wedding recently where the photographer popped light on a stand and moved it around the room as she worked keeping it around 15-30 feet from her subjects. The photos came out pretty well but still had the dark background. Using some flashes on the tables sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure the bounce worked well.

You're right about the ISO in my examples - I could easily have bumped it up and in practice, I did in the dimmer areas, going up to 6400, which is about as high as I dared with the 5DII. I think they're good examples of how even slow motion can be an issue if the light is lower, though.

Speaking of film, I laughed when I read one of Art Wolfe's recent books talking about trying to shoot wildlife with ISO 25 film. Yikes