$2,000 14-24 f2.8, vs $1,800 16-35 f2.8 IS, vs $3,000 11-24 f4

[privatebydesign]

EDIT: The wording of my first question seems confusing, so here is V2.

If somebody was to give you the choice of one of the above options as a gift which would you find most beneficial for your photography, or which would you most like to own.

No selling to get something else or other work arounds, which of the three choices would you most ike in your bag?

------------------------------------------------

Earlier version:

To refine the question a little, the 14-24 and 11-24 both have bulbous front elements and need a Wonderpana style filter solution, the 16-35 would have a regular 82mm filter thread.

As a sub question, how much would cost impact your purchase, if they were all the same price which would you buy or covet the most?

 

[PhotographerJim]

Where's the 16-35 f/4 ? I've loaned one from CPS new, and it was amazing. That's what I'm saving for

 

[SPL]

+1 on the 16-35 f4. 77mm thread and its amazingly sharp! It's a fantastic lens! If I need more than 16mm, I'll rent.

 

[Chapman Baxter]

Where's the 16-35 f/4 ? I've loaned one from CPS new, and it was amazing. That's what I'm saving for

...or the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 at $1,199, which is what I'm saving for.

 

[Click]

One more vote for the 16-35 f/4

 

[privatebydesign]

The 16-35 f4 IS (I know how good it is I have one as well) and Tamron are not in there because this more of a 'what if' postulation. There were many heated threads during the various 11-24 rumours with people saying it must have this or it must have that.

I was interested in how many people think the option Canon actually gave us was the right one in the Blue Ribbon ultra wide zoom class.

Personally I will be getting the 11-24 f4, primarily because it goes to 11, I don't really care about IS or f2.8 in that lens as the paying work I do with it will always be on a tripod and not f4. But if a 16-35 f2.8 IS came out the brand new 16-35 f4 IS would be sold to get it as well.

So I gave two fictitious specs to see how popular the various choices actually are in comparison to what we got, lets face it Canon could have done any of them and it would have been great, but a rectilinear 11mm! That is, like the 17TS-E (which I also have) and the 65MP-E, just showing off. Canon might not have the 'best' DR, but they are beating the crap out of everybody for lenses.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

To refine the question a little, the 14-24 and 11-24 both have bulbous front elements and need a Wonderpana style filter solution, the 16-35 would have a regular 82mm filter thread.

As a sub question, how much would cost impact your purchase, if they were all the same price which would you buy or covet the most?

even if the price was the same the 16-35 will still be my choice
its about the same angle of view as the 10-22 ef-s the wider you go the more distortion you get.
also you will have to really watch your light sources as flare is always a possibility.

 

[surapon]

Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend money more than $ 1,000 US Dollars for These Canon ultra-Wide zoom lenses, Because I already have a good Prime Lens by : Rokinon 14 MM F/ 2.8 For All Canon EOS just = $ 367 US Dollars, And Great Photos VIA. my Old 66 years old eyes.

http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE14M-C-Ultra-Canon-Black/dp/B003VSGQPG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423447432&sr=8-1&keywords=rokinon+14+mm.

Have a good Sunday night , Sir/ Madame
Surapon

 

[privatebydesign]

Surapon,

I appreciate your honesty but that isn't the spirit of the question.

Think of it like this, if somebody was to give you one of the three options which one would you find most appealing for your own photography?

 

[PhotographerJim]

Ok, I reread everything and now I understand was is being asked. I think the 16-35 option for me, I'd like the ability to use normal CP filters on it, the longer zoom range and IS to boot. Looks like what I'd want in a wide zoom.

 

[Vivid Color]

The way the question was phrased, I thought we were voting on actual lenses and I didn't read the survey carefully to see that was not the case. Please subtract my vote from the fictitious 16 to 35 mm lens. I'd rather have the real f/4 version. That said, I'm basing my answer on what I think is the best value for my own money. If money were no object, then the new 11 to 24 mm lens is very enticing.

 

[Mr1Dx]

11-24 as an add on

 

[ejenner]

I must admit, I didn't quite get the point, but would have still voted 11-24. Not sure if I will actually get one, but I use these primarily for landscapes where f4+ is plenty. Even in low light I have to say I usually want at least f4 for DOF. Very occasionally I would like to have a fast UWA, but if I felt I needed it enough I's get the 24L. For astro I'd get the Rok 14mm.

So although so many people have said they really want f2.8, I actually think Canon have it right. I mean how sharp do you need corners at f2.8 when you are dealing with a limited DOF anyway, even in an UWA. And there still is the 16-35 f2.8 for that.

If the latest lenses were 2.8 and the same size with corners only slightly better than the previous UWA's I think more people would have passed on them.

I do think there is room for an updated UWA 2.8 though. Since Canon seems now to be able to make sharp f4's I think it will happen. What FL is possible something that is being debated if a 2.8 is on the cards. After all the 16-35 2.8 is very popular, OTOH 14-24 2.8 would also make a lot of sense. I would be very surprised if they have IS though.

 

[cid]

I own 16-35 f/4 it's awesome really

BUT

I have seen video and some samples from 11-24 and @11mm it just looks awesome, creates lot's of guiding lines in landscape, it just makes me want it

BUT

there is question of money and if I consider spending so much money (or more )on lens, then it would be on some telephoto (still looking forward to 400 DO mk II reviews and image samples)

 

[Rahul]

I have the 16-35 f/2.8L II and did not upgrade to the f/4 IS when it was released last year. I had been considering the f/4 but now I'll be buying the 11-24 as soon as it becomes available. The 16-35 will be, of course, sold!

 

[Marsu42]

I have the 16-35 f/2.8L II and did not upgrade to the f/4 IS when it was released last year.

I don't see a f4 uwa as an "upgrade", rather than a "sidegrade". It's hard enough as it is to get any bokeh/background separation from a wide angle lens, and f2.8 can make a difference. On longer lenses, one stop more of light probably is the reason to go f2.8, as f4 can already provide plenty of background blur.

That's why I'd like to have a simply 14-24/2.8 - very wide w/o being too much of a "speciality lens" and no IS that doesn't make sense when somehting's moving and is one more part that costs €€€ and can break.

 

[Rahul]

I have the 16-35 f/2.8L II and did not upgrade to the f/4 IS when it was released last year.

I don't see a f4 uwa as an "upgrade", rather than a "sidegrade".

Personally I think that the IS and corner sharpness of the f/4 is "upgrade" over the f/2.8.

I was sort of hoping against hope that Canon would release a 16-35 f/2.8 IS III but now with the 11-24 f/4 and 16-35 f/4 IS in the WA lineup, I just don't see it happening.

My biggest concern with the 11-24 is the bulbous front element which makes it a dainty to use when I'm out in the crowded parts of India I photograph. My WA lenses have protection filters in such cases, something I won't be able to use on the 11-24. Maybe I'll be able to build myself a case to get the 16-35 f/4 as well.

 

[surapon]

Surapon,

I appreciate your honesty but that isn't the spirit of the question.

Think of it like this, if somebody was to give you one of the three options which one would you find most appealing for your own photography?

Thanks you, Sir, Dear Teacher Mr. privatebydesign
Yes, I love to have Canon EF 11-24 f4 L.( $ 3,000), Because of The Widest and The Sharpest of The New Lens, Look from MTF. Chart By Canon. AND from 11-24 mm. that for Landscape shot that I use with tripods and do not need IS. any ways. = A lot better than my 12 years old Tamron 11-17 MM.f/4.5-5.6 Di-II SP LD Aspherical (IF) Lens ( $ 375 US Dollars) .
Have a great work week, Sir.
Surapon

 

[DRR]

16-35 f/2.8 IS, for a couple of reasons.

Versus the 11-24, there are times where there just isn't a substitute for a wider aperture. Plus you get IS on top of it. Sure, you sacrifice the 11-16 range but that is not a particularly important range for me anyway.

Versus the 14-24, I give up 2mm on the wide end but gain 11 on the max end. Yes, each mm on the wide end makes more of a difference versus 24-35, however, with my current 16-35mm, I am generally at either 16mm or 35mm anyway because I am so used to the 35mm FL.

So of the three the 16-35 f/2.8 IS is by far the most appealing. Not that I'd turn down any gift like that though...

 

[mackguyver]

11-24 f/4, not that I've made a secret of it . The real question for me is whether or not I'll keep the 16-35 f/4 IS. It's a killer lens, but will I use it considering I have the 11-24? It's a perfect travel lens as well, but then again, the EF-M 11-22 IS is 90% as good in a much more portable package.

Unless you're shooting events or sports where you really, really need that 1 extra stop to double your shutter speed, I just don't get the need for f/2.8 in this focal length range. Bokeh is not an issue and the 24 and 35 f/1.4s are two stops faster (for weddings and events) and you can always get the 24, 28 and 35 IS lenses in f/2.8, and f/2 if you need IS for video and such.