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

[privatebydesign]

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........

That is exactly my thinking. I will be getting the 11-24 (sorry Profoto, for now) but I won't be selling the 16-35 f4 IS any time soon, I shoot much more wide and ultrawide now even for portraits, which are usually environmental. I'll see how practical taking the 11-24 is on trips before letting anything go but it will be getting crowed, 16-35 f4 IS, 11-24 f4 and 17TS-E f4. Canon are very much looking after my needs at this point, now where is that 90TS-E MkII.......

 

[sagittariansrock]

I would much rather prefer a 16-35mm f/2.8 with IS, considering the advantages of using a filter, having image stabilization and a larger focal length range than the other options. The rare times that I need a 14mm, my Rokinon will suffice.
Except... all the choices other than the $ 3K 11-24mm are unicorns at the moment

 

[kirispupis]

While there is some overlap between a 14-24/2.8 and an 11-24/4, there is really very little overlap between the 16-35/4 IS and the 11-24/4. I own a 16-35/4 and have the 11-24/4 on order. Besides the obvious point that they have different focal ranges, there is the following to consider.

- The 16-35/4 can take front filters - meaning polarizers. The 11-24/4 only takes gels - so your're limited to ND filters
- IS on the 16-35/4 allows one to take shots near 1/2s - meaning situations not generally possible with something else
- The 16-35/4 does a decent job with infrared. I am not sure about the 11-24/4, but I will not know for some time because all of my IR is currently done with a filter.
- The 16-35/4 is a much smaller lens
- While both are weather proof, with the 16-35 you do not need to worry about the protruding front element

 

[mackguyver]

While there is some overlap between a 14-24/2.8 and an 11-24/4, there is really very little overlap between the 16-35/4 IS and the 11-24/4. I own a 16-35/4 and have the 11-24/4 on order. Besides the obvious point that they have different focal ranges, there is the following to consider.

- The 16-35/4 can take front filters - meaning polarizers. The 11-24/4 only takes gels - so your're limited to ND filters
- IS on the 16-35/4 allows one to take shots near 1/2s - meaning situations not generally possible with something else
- The 16-35/4 does a decent job with infrared. I am not sure about the 11-24/4, but I will not know for some time because all of my IR is currently done with a filter.
- The 16-35/4 is a much smaller lens
- While both are weather proof, with the 16-35 you do not need to worry about the protruding front element

Those are some of the reasons I'm thinking about keeping the 16-35 f/4 IS, and I'll add that I find the 16-35mm range very useful. Stopping at 24mm means changing lenses, whereas 24-35 covers a lot of additional shooting. The polarizer argument is less important to me as most of my shots include the sky, but if you shoot a lot of wet rocks and such, it's a good one. My thing is that I have a ridiculous number of wide lenses already and I'm certainly not a collector - so it's more than I need or could use regularly. It's also a lot of money tied up that could be used to pay for the 11-24 outright.

 

[kirispupis]

While there is some overlap between a 14-24/2.8 and an 11-24/4, there is really very little overlap between the 16-35/4 IS and the 11-24/4. I own a 16-35/4 and have the 11-24/4 on order. Besides the obvious point that they have different focal ranges, there is the following to consider.

- The 16-35/4 can take front filters - meaning polarizers. The 11-24/4 only takes gels - so your're limited to ND filters
- IS on the 16-35/4 allows one to take shots near 1/2s - meaning situations not generally possible with something else
- The 16-35/4 does a decent job with infrared. I am not sure about the 11-24/4, but I will not know for some time because all of my IR is currently done with a filter.
- The 16-35/4 is a much smaller lens
- While both are weather proof, with the 16-35 you do not need to worry about the protruding front element

Those are some of the reasons I'm thinking about keeping the 16-35 f/4 IS, and I'll add that I find the 16-35mm range very useful. Stopping at 24mm means changing lenses, whereas 24-35 covers a lot of additional shooting. The polarizer argument is less important to me as most of my shots include the sky, but if you shoot a lot of wet rocks and such, it's a good one. My thing is that I have a ridiculous number of wide lenses already and I'm certainly not a collector - so it's more than I need or could use regularly. It's also a lot of money tied up that could be used to pay for the 11-24 outright.

I am in a similar boat. I will now have the following WA lenses - 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 II, TS-E 24 II, TS-E 17, 8-15 fisheye, and 11-24/4. The problem is each has its own niche, so I have no plans to get rid of any of them.

 

[Rahul]

I am in a similar boat. I will now have the following WA lenses - 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 II, TS-E 24 II, TS-E 17, 8-15 fisheye, and 11-24/4. The problem is each has its own niche, so I have no plans to get rid of any of them.

I see I am not alone ;D

I have the 8-15, 16-35 II, 24-70 II and the TSE17. After I get the 11-24, I will probably give the 16-35 II the boot. However, given that it has proved to be a good walkaround lens for my shooting purposes, I'm also leaning towards the 16-35 f/4 IS. G.A.S. ... time will tell!

 

[Zv]

16-35 f/4 IS is most appealing to me right now. Everything about it sounds perfect. Will most likely get this lens at some point (next bonus pay perhaps!). I've learned just how useful IS can be on a UWA lens from using the EF-M 11-22 and I want that in FF flavor! Only, it will be even better! ;D

The 17-40L has treated me well though and I just love the size and weight - perfectly balanced on a 6D. But if I hardly use it what's the point? Most of the wide stuff I do now is when light levels get low. And the light weight of the lens is offset by having to carry a tripod anyway!

I would love to have the 11-24 one day but it's more of a specialized lens that probably needs the higher res cameras to make it really shine and make it worthwhile.

I just realized I have no new generation Canon lenses. What the heck am I doing?? Missing all the fun!

 

[mackguyver]

Zv, you can't go wrong with the 16-35 f/4 IS. It's an incredible lens and it really is a big brother of then M11-22 IS. The biggest difference is the 9 (vs. 7) aperture blades. Also, it balances really well on FF bodies and feels lighter than it looks.

 

[Zv]

Zv, you can't go wrong with the 16-35 f/4 IS. It's an incredible lens and it really is a big brother of then M11-22 IS. The biggest difference is the 9 (vs. 7) aperture blades. Also, it balances really well on FF bodies and feels lighter than it looks.

You're right I should just pull the trigger and stop procrastinating like I did with the 6D. If I sell my 17-40 it's only about another ¥60,000 more. But I promised myself not to buy anymore gear this year and just use what I have. Bah! Screw that!

 

[mackguyver]

Zv, you can't go wrong with the 16-35 f/4 IS. It's an incredible lens and it really is a big brother of then M11-22 IS. The biggest difference is the 9 (vs. 7) aperture blades. Also, it balances really well on FF bodies and feels lighter than it looks.

You're right I should just pull the trigger and stop procrastinating like I did with the 6D. If I sell my 17-40 it's only about another ¥60,000 more. But I promised myself not to buy anymore gear this year and just use what I have. Bah! Screw that!

Where's the fun in that? Also, I dare you to find one (rational) person who has anything bad to say about the 16-35 f/4 IS

 

[privatebydesign]

It is true, the 16-35 f4 IS is a considerable image improvement over the 17-40 f4, and you get IS. Having got the 16-35 f4IS I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to pretty much anybody.

 

[Memdroid]

I just need a new 16-35 f2.8, IS or not does not matter. Just a major jump in IQ and size like the 24-70 II did. The F4 version is not doing it to me because I need the low light advantage.

 

[9VIII]

This is surprisingly tricky.
For landscape I'll take IS over an extra stop of aperture, but that lens is also the narrowest of the bunch.
If the 16-35 were a 14-24 instead then I would get that for sure, but as is I guess the 14-24 sounds best.
(If memory serves me, the 16-35 performs best above 20mm.)
If the new 11-24 has significantly improved image quality overall than the 14-24 (sharpness and distortion at the same focal length), then that would probably be my choice.
The 11-24 will be the least flexible lens of the bunch, but for ideal conditions I think it would be hard to make an argument for another lens.
I guess the best conclusion I can come to is I wish that cannon would make a 14mm f2.8 IS prime lens.

 

[mlbaker74]

It appears that I am not the only one faced with the dilemma of choosing an UWA zoom. I've had the 16-35mm f2.8 for several years now, but I've had to send it back to Canon already for an adjustment once and fear that it is about to be sent back for a second time in 2.5 years. I was about to just replace it with the 16-35 f4; I found that most of what I shot on the 16-25 f2.8 was either outdoors and/or at f4 so I doubt I'll miss the extra stop. Plus, I inherited a 14mm f2.8 lens recently, which is great under relatively low-light conditions. Now that the 11-24 has finally been announced, I am reconsidering the 16-35 f4. The extra 11-16mm zoom would sure come in handy, but the portability of the 16-35 is so nice. I rarely take my 14mm out unless I already know what I want to shoot, while the 16-35 was one of my go to walking around lenses. Tough, first world problems I guess....

 

[RGF]

Of course IQ needs to be the same on all the lens to make a decision.

 

[Finn M]

It is true, the 16-35 f4 IS is a considerable image improvement over the 17-40 f4, and you get IS. Having got the 16-35 f4IS I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to pretty much anybody.

I agree.

The 16-35/4L IS is a very big improvement over both the EF 16-35/2,8L II and EF 17-40/4L. I have over the last 10 years owned many copies of both lenses, got frustrated with the IQ, sold them and after a while bought them back because Canon had no alternatives. In the end I switched to Nikon and the AF-S 14-24/2,8 which I had for three years. The IQ was very good, but it isn't possible to use filters on the Nikon, which is very important for me, and it is very large and heavy. It was therefore a great satisfaction for me to try the new 16-35/4L IS which is very sharp, actually in the same class as Nikons 14-24mm.
16-35mm is the ideal zoom range in the wideangle area. 14mm is in my opinion too wide. Then it is better to use a 8-15mm Fisheye which I also own. If you know what you are doing, a Fisheye gives in many situations more natural pictures than a 14mm wideangle. Also with people in the frame.

Which lens I would choose? Not the Canon 11-24/2,8 or Nikon 14-24/2,8. You can't use filter on either of them. And both of them stop on 24mm. I then had to buy also a 24-70mm zoom because I need the 18-28mm area. Silly to switch between two lenses (Which I did for many years with the Nikon) when a single 16-35mm can do it all.

The winner? None of them! The EF 16-35/4L IS is the best. It is cheaper, lighter, more compact and it takes 77mm filters. Of course it lack f2,8 but instead it has IS which is more important! Especially with the new 5Ds 50Mpix camera. Nobody really needs f2,8 for landscapes or street photos/architecture. The DOF is then too narrow. F2,8 is of course great for photographing the Northern light, but then you can buy the 14/2,8L II instead?