16-35 f4 IS vs 16-35 f2.8 II stopped down

[jeanluc]

Hi all

Any current 16-35 2.8 II owners recently switch to the f4 IS recently? It's pretty clear which one to get if you don't already own a wide angle zoom. I use my f 2.8 16-35 II on a tripod at f11 or higher almost all the time (and was pretty happy with that) and was wondering if in this circumstance I would see any significant difference. Having said that, when the price drops a bit I'll probably get the f4 too....

 

[Khalai]

Hi all

Any current 16-35 2.8 II owners recently switch to the f4 IS recently? It's pretty clear which one to get if you don't already own a wide angle zoom. I use my f 2.8 16-35 II on a tripod at f11 or higher almost all the time (and was pretty happy with that) and was wondering if in this circumstance I would see any significant difference. Having said that, when the price drops a bit I'll probably get the f4 too....

That is the important part and the answer is "no, not a significant one". At narrow apertures from f/8 above, the difference is very marginal. I have the 16-35/4L and I'm more than happy with it, but if I had 16-35/2.8L II, I dare to say, I would not be so inclined to get the new one.

 

[Random Orbits]

Not too much of a difference if that is where you use it exclusively. The f/4 IS might handle color fringing a bit better... It's improved midrange to corner performance wide open is well-known, and that improvement might tempt you to explore using ultrawides for other purposes than just stopped down for landscapes....

 

[tomscott]

Well the thing between these two is obvious. Do you ever shoot or need to shoot lower than F4. From what I have seen the 16-35mm F4 is a tad sharper in the corners but not night and day, get past F5.6 and they are very simiilar.

They are about the same size and weight, the new hood is a million times better, but the IS can be a very useful tool from testing you can shoot up to about a second with it meaning all new possibilities in different environments with good sharp results.

I still feel that the original 17-40mm has some advantages, it's size its tiny in comparison the new one has grown quite substantially it is also 200g lighter so for people who hike a lot this may be a benefit. When you step all of them down to F8-11 they all perform similarly the two older models suffer with a little more CA, the new one controls this very well, but has as much or worse vignetting.

Price, the F4 is bang in the middle but the 17-40mm is probably the most popular lens in canons line up being the smallest and cheapest so these can be had really cheap, the 2.8 is still redic over priced and the new F4 is still quite pricey.

I don't think if you have the 2.8 it's worth downgrading, I say downgrade because at 2.8 it's much more useful and can be used for events, landscape, architecture and atrophotography.

If you are serious about landscape you usually take a tripod anyway.

Cracking lens but not really a very exciting lens as dustin abbot has said.