Canon 16-35mm advice

[Memdroid]

Recently my Canon 16-35mm II got shattered in a freak accident during an event, it slipped right out of my fingers when I got it out of the bag and dived head first to the ground. Front element is completely shot, the zoom won't work and I hear ramblings inside the housing. Iy still takes pictures, very distorted as expected and AF seems to be working, totally unreliable I imagine.
Anyway I send it to Canon for repairs and expect a bill that it is not economical to repair. I called the gear insurance as well and they will cover it 100% no matter the cost, which is perfect.
Even in the worst case scenario where my lens is a total loss, I have to buy a new one and I am considering the F4 IS version as a possible replacement. Talking to the event shooters, I rarely shoot in brightly lit conditions, handheld, low shutter speeds and I am wide open 80% of the time with the mk II version and I am wondering how well the F4 IS performs. I lose a stop, but is the difference very noticeable if I bump the ISO a stop to compensate?

 

[Eldar]

The only reason for getting the f2.8L II is f2.8 over f4. ISO6400 instead of ISO12800 with the same shutter speed in poor light would be a borderline for me. If you can live with the ISO-performance and/or shutter speed consequences of having f4 as fastest aperture, the f4L IS is in my view a no-brainer. Optically it is a much better lens, except for the aperture penalty.

 

[Loswr]

...I rarely shoot in brightly lit conditions, handheld, low shutter speeds and I am wide open 80% of the time with the mk II version and I am wondering how well the F4 IS performs. I lose a stop, but is the difference very noticeable if I bump the ISO a stop to compensate?

Depends on the camera, the ISO, how you process images, and your tolerance for noise. If you're at the edge of that with best technique (RAW with DxO Prime NR, for example), and that's 80% of your shots, then probably f/4 wouldn't work. As Eldar says, the f/4 IS is optically a better lens.

 

[Memdroid]

Thanks for the replies. I use it mainly on a 1Dx and sometimes the 5D III an I rarely go beyond ISO 2000 with the 600ex installed. I think I'll ask a CPS loan and see if I like it or not in these situations.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Thanks for the replies. I use it mainly on a 1Dx and sometimes the 5D III an I rarely go beyond ISO 2000 with the 600ex installed. I think I'll ask a CPS loan and see if I like it or not in these situations.

You may experience going to ISO 3200 with the 16-35/4. If you need to stop action, there isn't any other option but the f2.8L II. I have the 16-35/4 and I'm very happy that I traded with the f2.8L II because most of my photography is landscape and architecture.

 

[mackguyver]

Are you already pushing ISO 3200+? Also, are you using the zoom much and shooting really wide? If you're already bumping the ISO ceiling at f/2.8 and don't need the zoom or wide shots, I'd consider the 24 f/1.4 II or the 35 f/1.4 as those extra two stops can be really huge. Otherwise, I'd consider another 16-35 f/2.8 II if you're just shooting events, or the f/4 IS version if you want the best Canon zoom in this range.

 

[Ruined]

Recently my Canon 16-35mm II got shattered in a freak accident during an event, it slipped right out of my fingers when I got it out of the bag and dived head first to the ground. Front element is completely shot, the zoom won't work and I hear ramblings inside the housing. Iy still takes pictures, very distorted as expected and AF seems to be working, totally unreliable I imagine.
Anyway I send it to Canon for repairs and expect a bill that it is not economical to repair. I called the gear insurance as well and they will cover it 100% no matter the cost, which is perfect.
Even in the worst case scenario where my lens is a total loss, I have to buy a new one and I am considering the F4 IS version as a possible replacement. Talking to the event shooters, I rarely shoot in brightly lit conditions, handheld, low shutter speeds and I am wide open 80% of the time with the mk II version and I am wondering how well the F4 IS performs. I lose a stop, but is the difference very noticeable if I bump the ISO a stop to compensate?

I've had both and I can say this:

If you are frequently shooting moving subjects (i.e. people) in poor light, I would get the 16-35mm f/2.8L II over the F/4L IS - or even better the 24mm f/1.4L II if you are able to use a prime as f/1.4 will bring in a ton more light than f/2.8. If you think about it, it is very challenging to capture groups of moving people wider than 24mm without severe distortion approaching the edges; even 24mm has some noticeable distortion at the edges, though you can crop a bit of the pic out if that happens. That edge distortion looks great with landscape but poor with people. Cool people/portrait shots w/o distortion are possible at 16mm but it generally requires a carefully setup shot with the subject posing near the center of the frame.

If you are frequently shooting still subjects in poor light, I would get the 16-35mm f/4L IS.

That decision tree should guide you pretty well. For wide angle, personally I now use a 24L (wide event) + 16-35 f/4L (landscape) combo which I am very happy with. I also have a 24-70 f/2.8 II in the range which I can use if I want an f/2.8 zoom that can hit 24mm, but I love the extra light the 24mm f/1.4 II gives me to stop motion in dim light.

 

[Memdroid]

I've had both and I can say this:

If you are frequently shooting moving subjects (i.e. people) in poor light, I would get the 16-35mm f/2.8L II over the F/4L IS - or even better the 24mm f/1.4L II if you are able to use a prime as f/1.4 will bring in a ton more light than f/2.8. If you think about it, it is very challenging to capture groups of moving people wider than 24mm without severe distortion approaching the edges; even 24mm has some noticeable distortion at the edges, though you can crop a bit of the pic out if that happens. That edge distortion looks great with landscape but poor with people. Cool people/portrait shots w/o distortion are possible at 16mm but it generally requires a carefully setup shot with the subject posing near the center of the frame.

If you are frequently shooting still subjects in poor light, I would get the 16-35mm f/4L IS.

That decision tree should guide you pretty well. For wide angle, personally I now use a 24L (wide event) + 16-35 f/4L (landscape) combo which I am very happy with. I also have a 24-70 f/2.8 II in the range which I can use if I want an f/2.8 zoom that can hit 24mm, but I love the extra light the 24mm f/1.4 II gives me to stop motion in dim light.

Thanks Ruined and the rest.
I have the 24-70 II and the 24L II in my bag as well, and I mix and match all the time, depending on the venue and the subjects I shoot. The range is pretty covered but sometimes I just got go a little wider. I have acquired a loan 16-35 F4 just now from CPS (delivered in 1 day! thanks Canon!) and I am going to use it tonight on an event and see how it works for me. I like the build, just like the 24-70 II, which is already a plus!

@Mackguyver. No I rarely bump the ISO that high.

 

[mackguyver]

I've had both and I can say this:

If you are frequently shooting moving subjects (i.e. people) in poor light, I would get the 16-35mm f/2.8L II over the F/4L IS - or even better the 24mm f/1.4L II if you are able to use a prime as f/1.4 will bring in a ton more light than f/2.8. If you think about it, it is very challenging to capture groups of moving people wider than 24mm without severe distortion approaching the edges; even 24mm has some noticeable distortion at the edges, though you can crop a bit of the pic out if that happens. That edge distortion looks great with landscape but poor with people. Cool people/portrait shots w/o distortion are possible at 16mm but it generally requires a carefully setup shot with the subject posing near the center of the frame.

If you are frequently shooting still subjects in poor light, I would get the 16-35mm f/4L IS.

That decision tree should guide you pretty well. For wide angle, personally I now use a 24L (wide event) + 16-35 f/4L (landscape) combo which I am very happy with. I also have a 24-70 f/2.8 II in the range which I can use if I want an f/2.8 zoom that can hit 24mm, but I love the extra light the 24mm f/1.4 II gives me to stop motion in dim light.

Thanks Ruined and the rest.
I have the 24-70 II and the 24L II in my bag as well, and I mix and match all the time, depending on the venue and the subjects I shoot. The range is pretty covered but sometimes I just got go a little wider. I have acquired a loan 16-35 F4 just now from CPS (delivered in 1 day! thanks Canon!) and I am going to use it tonight on an event and see how it works for me. I like the build, just like the 24-70 II, which is already a plus!

@Mackguyver. No I rarely bump the ISO that high.

Okay, I didn't think so, but I used to shoot a lot of outdoor events at night and I would often be at ISO1600+ & f/1.4 just to get 1/30s so the 16-35 and 24-70 f/2.8s were no good for me. I think you'll like the 16-35 f/4 IS - and that is a fast loan from CPS! It should be a great compliment to your other lenses and unless you're shooting sports, I imagine you'll get 1/60 - 1/100s at f/4 at an acceptable ISO with those camera bodies.