Canon 16-35MM F4 IS or 16-35MM 2.8?

[Zv]

All of you guys make good points, besides even if I get the 16-35mm f4 is I still will have the 14mm 2.8 ii for low light wide angle stuff, however with the ton of rumors about the 16-35mm 2.8 iii coming out how much would you guys estimate that lens will cost? & should i wait for it and save my money /wait for it and buy the 16-35mm f4 is now?

Buy the f/4 now. Don't wait for an unspecified amount of time, you'll just be wasting precious shooting opportunities if you do that. And what if it's priced over 2K when it finally does materialize and you decide that it's too much? The f/4 is a lens that exists now and you can have it in your hands and be out shooting with it.

I toyed with the idea of the f/4 for a while, humming and hawing and procrastinating. Now I think back to some trips where I could've really benefited from that IS and think "I'm an idiot, should've bought it long ago". Nevertheless I got some pretty good shots mind you from my 17-40L but I keep thinking how awesome they'd be if only ...

Don't do what I did. Get it. Use it. Enjoy it!

 

[crazydogrun]

Like many others, I have owned both and highly recommend the f/4. I sold the f/2.8 to get the f/4. My copy of the f/2.8 ll was my least favorite Canon lens and was rarely used (soft corners, soft wide open, poor IQ for landscape work). On the other hand, my f/4 is fantastic for landscapes and is frequently used.

 

[pwp]

Like many others, I have owned both and highly recommend the f/4. I sold the f/2.8 to get the f/4. My copy of the f/2.8 ll was my least favorite Canon lens and was rarely used (soft corners, soft wide open, poor IQ for landscape work). On the other hand, my f/4 is fantastic for landscapes and is frequently used.

This exactly mirrors my experience. The 16-35 f/2.8II has been a disappointment for a lot of photographers not lucky enough to have scored one of the rare good copies. Dollar wise, it was a straight swap from my 2008 16-35 f/2.8II to a new16-35 f/4is. As I said earlier, "at last", an UWA zoom I can completely trust.

-pw

 

[Cheekysascha]

Thank you so much for all the input and recommendations on which lens to pick up, I decided to go for the 16-35mm f4 is for it's insane sharpness at the corners and also I figured I can just use my 14mm 2.8ii and 24 and 35 primes at night if I do want to do northern lights and astro stuff thanks for all the help!

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Great! Hope you enjoy it! Let us know how you like it. Based on your other gear, I think this is a logical next item.

 

[j-nord]

Thank you so much for all the input and recommendations on which lens to pick up, I decided to go for the 16-35mm f4 is for it's insane sharpness at the corners and also I figured I can just use my 14mm 2.8ii and 24 and 35 primes at night if I do want to do northern lights and astro stuff thanks for all the help!

That lens definitely complements your prime collection! I'm still waiting for that 16-35 f2.8 IS (or non-IS mkIII) for night photography. In the mean time the 16-35 f4 is so tempting

 

[krisbell]

I still absolutely love my 16-35mm f4. I upgraded from the 2.8 III and it is so much better...

Creepy Street by Kris Bell, on Flickr

 

[monkey44]

Yeah - the f4 is awesome, haven't found any reason to change it - or even think about an upgrade that might no really be an 'upgrade' ...

 

[iaind]

Upgraded my 17-35 2.8L to 16-35 4L IS and don't miss the extra stop.

 

[Bernd Stuht]

I also slowly looking for an Replacement for my 17-40 L - but i dont often use UWW.

A Friend of mine started with DSLR not that long ago and i told her to buy the f4 IS - she is absolutly happy with this Lens.

The Pictures taken with the f4 IS are superb 8) .

I would like to get an "extreme" UWW for especially UWW usage - the new 16-35 f2.8 III L seems to be nice for Photojounalist style of Photos - but would i use it really often as an Amateur - also have an 24-70 2.8 II in the Bag ?

Actually i took a second Look at the 11-24 f4 L - also the TS-E 17 - at my local "Dealer" - both nice Lenses - both heavy with bulbus Front Elements ( logical .. ) .

Price Tag of the 2.8 V III is actual really heavy - MFT Charts look pretty good but not that better than f4 IS.

I should wait and find my preferred Needs - converging lines are an Issue on my UWW Shots - TS-E 17 could serve this ( or 11-24 and crop the Image ) .

Just my "while first Coffee" thoughts

Greetings

Bernd

 

[hendrik-sg]

The 17 TS/s is really wonderful.... if the convergin lines are a concern (as for me) this one is the answer. beside that, it has almost no distortion and very low vignetting as long as it's not T'ed or S'ed.

For me the missing filter thread is no problem, polarizers are not so easy on ultrawides, because they darken ununiformly which may look strange.

I did not compare them in detail, but i would expect the IQ to be better from the 17 shifted than 11mm cropped. The 11-24 is not a "walk around" lens despite beeing a zoom, 24mm at the long end are quite limiting.

Only concerns with the TS lens are:

- It should always have the cap on, except when actually shooting
- operating is slow when shifted, because the light metering does not work then, you need to adjust your exposure manually,
- overshifted images look really bad, this happens if the lens is directed downwards, so i always use the camera level if i do not hav the tripod with me
- optimisically spoken, shooting tilted needs a lot of luck when focussing without tripod, i would state that this requires a tripod. This because focusing turns the plane of focus and makes focussing a tilted shot a itterative process.

 

[Bernd Stuht]

I know the 17 TS-E is a Bit difficult to use - but thats not a Problem - for fast Point&Shoot it is the wrong Choice .

I would use ist on Tripod most of the Time - an 11-24 or 16-35 are more handhold compatible :