Canon EF 11-24mm f4L vs Canon EF 16-35 f2.8 L III

[Larsskv]

I really do like shooting wide angle, and I am very satisfied with my Canon 16-35 f2.8 L III. It is absolutely amazingly sharp, even when pixel peeping on pictures taken with my 5Ds.

I do a lot of hiking in the Norwegian mountains, and this summer I occasionally found myself wishing that my 16-35mm lens could go wider - in particular when I was on spectacular viewing points.

Combined with GAS, and a savings account that allows for dreaming, I am now considering adding the 11-24 to my kit. I see however, that there are few rational reasons for doing so. My take is:

- the 16-35 is more flexible, both in aperture, and focal range
- the 16-35 is even better optically - about the same sharpness, but less chromatic aberrations
- the 16-35 is smaller and lighter
- when I need to go wider, I can often make panoramas

The main reason is see for buying the 11-24, would be beeing able to compose at wider angles, take those shots where panoramas is impossible, and the fun of having another lens. Not very good reasons for spending that kind of money...

However, does anyone have experience with both lenses? Do they supplement each other? What good reasons do you have for owning both lenses?

 

[fentiger]

you have answered your own questions, 4 reasons not to buy!

 

[fentiger]

also consider the weight, 16-35 is 790g
11-24 is 1180g

 

[Eldar]

I have both. An extra plus for the 16-35 is the use of standard filters. The 11-16mm range is fun, but it is also very challenging. My use of these two lenses are probably about 50:50. For hiking I normally prefer the 16-35.

 

[Larsskv]

you have answered your own questions, 4 reasons not to buy!

I know... But I was hoping to be proven wrong, and I am looking for reasons to buy...

 

[SecureGSM]

personally, I do not shoot wider than 14mm. Sigma 14 F1.8 Art lens is at the very top of my photographic shopping list presently.
Just waiting to the price to settle down a bit.

 

[Larsskv]

I have both. An extra plus for the 16-35 is the use of standard filters. The 11-16mm range is fun, but it is also very challenging. My use of these two lenses are probably about 50:50. For hiking I normally prefer the 16-35.

I can definitely understand that the 11-16 range must be challenging.

What is it you use your 11-24mm most for, if not when hiking?

 

[Larsskv]

personally, I do not shoot wider than 14mm. Sigma 14 F1.8 Art lens is at the very top of my photographic shopping list presently.
Just waiting to the price to settle down a bit.

I am tempted by the Sigma 14 f1.8 as well, but that would be mainly for northern lights photography.

I really do like using my primes, but I have also learned that having the ability to zoom is especially practical when shooting wide angles. 16mm is very often too wide, and i find that the ability to zoom to 35mm is extremely useful (and zooming to 24mm would be good too). Therefore, I don't consider the Sigma 14 f1.8 to be a direct competitor to the 11-24 (for my intended use - hiking)

 

[privatebydesign]

you have answered your own questions, 4 reasons not to buy!

I know... But I was hoping to be proven wrong, and I am looking for reasons to buy...

The one and only reason to buy is because it goes to 11 (fans of Spinal Tap will hopefully get the reference)! It is big, heavy, slow aperture, doesn't take filter easily, is very front heavy etc etc, but it gives an unmatched perspective which can, on occasions, give unique images.

I use the 2.8 for functions and events and the the 11-24 for traveling, and real estate/architecture.

 

[Ph0t0]

Hey Larsskv

If your primary use for the 11-24mm lens would be landscapes shoots in the mountains I would advise against buying it.

I just sold mine couple of weeks ago and the reasons for doing that were:
-Heavy
-F4 not that great for night photography
-lack of scenes where 11-16mm range is a must
-tricky to use at 11mm without distorting the subjects in corners in an unpleasant way (I hope you know what I mean with this)
-I usually ended up correcting distortion and cropping the edges of the 11mm shots anyway

If you really feel like you need a wider lens for night shoots I would suggest buying Sigma 14mm 1.8
BY the way if you like, I can send you some photos to illustrate what I meant by saying that subjects in corners were distorted in an unpleasant way. It kind of flattened the mountains and destroyed the scene in most situations.

 

[SecureGSM]

oh, not for hiking! Sigma is way to heavy. for hiking I would use 16-35 F4 L lens. It is sharp, reliable, relatively light. That said your 16-35 F2.8 III L is a great lens already.

personally, I do not shoot wider than 14mm. Sigma 14 F1.8 Art lens is at the very top of my photographic shopping list presently.
Just waiting to the price to settle down a bit.

I am tempted by the Sigma 14 f1.8 as well, but that would be mainly for northern lights photography.

I really do like using my primes, but I have also learned that having the ability to zoom is especially practical when shooting wide angles. 16mm is very often too wide, and i find that the ability to zoom to 35mm is extremely useful (and zooming to 24mm would be good too). Therefore, I don't consider the Sigma 14 f1.8 to be a direct competitor to the 11-24 (for my intended use - hiking)

 

[BeenThere]

Add an inexpensive 14mm to your kit. It will probably get you wide enough. 14mm is a good deal wider than 16mm. For landscapes, the MF Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 may satisfy your desire for wider angle.

 

[Larsskv]

oh, not for hiking! Sigma is way to heavy. for hiking I would use 16-35 F4 L lens. It is sharp, reliable, relatively light. That said your 16-35 F2.8 III L is a great lens already.

personally, I do not shoot wider than 14mm. Sigma 14 F1.8 Art lens is at the very top of my photographic shopping list presently.
Just waiting to the price to settle down a bit.

I am tempted by the Sigma 14 f1.8 as well, but that would be mainly for northern lights photography.

I really do like using my primes, but I have also learned that having the ability to zoom is especially practical when shooting wide angles. 16mm is very often too wide, and i find that the ability to zoom to 35mm is extremely useful (and zooming to 24mm would be good too). Therefore, I don't consider the Sigma 14 f1.8 to be a direct competitor to the 11-24 (for my intended use - hiking)

The 16-35 f4 L IS is a fantastic lens at a very decent price. I sold it when I got the 16-35 L III. The 16-35 L III is only marginally sharper at most focal lengths, but they differ quite a bit at 35mm. The 16-35 f4 L IS isn't that good at 35 mm. Since I like 35mm quite a bit, I therefore prefer the L III.

 

[Larsskv]

Add an inexpensive 14mm to your kit. It will probably get you wide enough. 14mm is a good deal wider than 16mm. For landscapes, the MF Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 may satisfy your desire for wider angle.

It would be the more rational approach.. But then again, I really do want to be able to zoom when shooting wide angles.

 

[Loswr]

I don't have both, but I have the 11-24 and I did have the 16-35/2.8 II. I sold the 16-35 II intending to buy the 16-35/4 IS, but decided to get the TS-E 17 instead. I could see owning both the 16-35 and the 11-24, but I couldn't ever see myself bringing both on an outing, because I'd always have the 24-70/2.8 II in the bag as well. My typical travel kit is 24-70, 11-24, TS-E 17, and either the 70-300L or the TS-E 24.

 

[Larsskv]

Hey Larsskv

If your primary use for the 11-24mm lens would be landscapes shoots in the mountains I would advise against buying it.

I just sold mine couple of weeks ago and the reasons for doing that were:
-Heavy
-F4 not that great for night photography
-lack of scenes where 11-16mm range is a must
-tricky to use at 11mm without distorting the subjects in corners in an unpleasant way (I hope you know what I mean with this)
-I usually ended up correcting distortion and cropping the edges of the 11mm shots anyway

If you really feel like you need a wider lens for night shoots I would suggest buying Sigma 14mm 1.8
BY the way if you like, I can send you some photos to illustrate what I meant by saying that subjects in corners were distorted in an unpleasant way. It kind of flattened the mountains and destroyed the scene in most situations.

Thank you for your input. I certainly see that only a few scenes will need more than 16mm, but I know of a few that woould... I will send you a PM with my e-mail adress. I would appreciate you sending me some photos!

 

[Larsskv]

you have answered your own questions, 4 reasons not to buy!

I know... But I was hoping to be proven wrong, and I am looking for reasons to buy...

but it gives an unmatched perspective which can, on occasions, give unique images.

I guess it comes down to this (and I knew it all the way)...

 

[jeffa4444]

Have you looked at the Irix 11mm f4 lens? Photography Blog have a review of it on a Canon 5DSr. Its lighter than the 11-24mm f4 zoom and way cheaper.

 

[ahsanford]

16-35 advantages over the 11-24:

• Takes standard filters -- this is simply essential. The 11-24 limits you to either rear mount gel filters to get ND functionality (that require a dismount in the field unless you knew you'd need it when you started your hike, sometimes not an ideal thing to have to do!) or a massive outrigger and huge filters (far larger than the typical landscape 100x100 / 100x150) to get a CPL or ND grad.
• f/2.8
• Smaller and lighter
• Cheaper
• Shoots from 25-35mm
• Better optically (they are pretty close, though)

11-24 advantage:

• It goes down to 11mm
• Annnnnnd.... [crickets]

As you can see, they are not comparable lenses -- it's not one or the other. Clearly, you should use the 16-35 for most of your use and then additionally consider a highly specialized ~ $3500 investment (lens + pricey filtering options) just to shoot a few mm wider FL.

Also, if you hike, IMHO you should probably be using the 16-35mm f/4L IS instead. Critically, it's a much lighter piece of kit and it's just as sharp at the apertures you are going to shoot landscapes with. The use of f/2.8 on the 16-35 f/2.8L III will be wasted as (a) you seem to be shooting landscapes and (b) its coma + staggering 16mm + f/2.8 vignetting are not what you want for astro.

I personally see the f/2.8L III as a dyed-in-the-wool tool for events/sports/reportage folks who need f/2.8 and would use it often at that aperture. Landscapers are wasting their money and back muscles on the f/2.8L III, IMHO.

- A

 

[YuengLinger]

personally, I do not shoot wider than 14mm. Sigma 14 F1.8 Art lens is at the very top of my photographic shopping list presently.
Just waiting to the price to settle down a bit.

I am tempted by the Sigma 14 f1.8 as well, but that would be mainly for northern lights photography.

I really do like using my primes, but I have also learned that having the ability to zoom is especially practical when shooting wide angles. 16mm is very often too wide, and i find that the ability to zoom to 35mm is extremely useful (and zooming to 24mm would be good too). Therefore, I don't consider the Sigma 14 f1.8 to be a direct competitor to the 11-24 (for my intended use - hiking)

I was thinking the same way about the Sigma, but thanks to the-digital-picture.com, I was able to see for myself that the distortion of the Sigma is worse that the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 III. Yes, I know we are talking two mm more on the Sigma, but the Sigma is also has noticeably more distortion than the Canon 14mm, which, unfortunately, just isn't sharp enough for me.

So...Owning the 16-35mm f/4L IS, I've considered upgrading, but thought, eh, just to gain an f/stop and lose IS?

Now I see that the 2.8 III has much less distortion than the f/4, so the GAS is starting to rumble. One thing holding me back is the vignetting, but reports here don't make much of that.