Canon EF 16-35mm f/4.0 IS L vs f/2.8 Mkiii?

[Sabaki]

Hi everyone

I'm definitely picking up a full frame body soon but I am struggling to work out which wide angle zoom to buy.

I was having a hard look at the 11-24mm but felt that the price, the f/4.0 aperture and my ability to use the 11mm range effectively puts it out of the running for me.

I am very interested in the 16-35mm mkii though as I am very impressed with the sharpness across the frame, as well as the punchy contrast.

I will be using this 99.9% of the time for landscapes and star trails on tripod but I do have a concern about the largest aperture of f/4.0. All my experience with star trails says 'go to f/2.8' and I'm unsure if f/4.0 will be unsuitable for star trails.

Canon Rumors made mention of a possible 16-35mm f/2.8 L mkiii and if this lens offers the same IQ as the f/4.0, I'll jump on it in a flash.

As you guys can see, I'm aiming for a lens that doesn't exist, worried about the aperture of the f/4.0 version and dismissive of the 11-24. Anybody willing to offer me some good advise or experiences of their own that may help me make up my mind please?

T.I.A.

 

[sunnyVan]

If I was in your situation I might consider Tamron. Three price for their 2.8 version is very attractive and an extra 1mm is very nice bonus. I would use it for a year or two. If by then Canon has an updated 2.8, the price will have come down a little bit and I'd sell the tamron.

 

[pwp]

A colleague in another city trialled a 16-35 f4is to run on a second 1DX body for some night aerials over the city. The first body ran with a 24 f/1.4II and the results from this one were a professional embarrassment. The 16-35 f/4is saved the day. He showed me files that he shot from a helicopter at 1/15, 1/20 & 1/30 sec and almost unbelievably they were good, useable files. He does have very steady hands (I'm jealous) but these results verge on freaky.

This experience coupled with the very positive reviews of this lens have convinced me to trade my somewhat disappointing 16-35 f/2.8II for the stabilized f/4. Who knows when the f/2.8III zoom will ship? 2017? OP, if you need the lens now it's unlikely you'll be disappointed with the f/4is.

-pw

 

[expatinasia]

I have no experience with star trails, but I did swap my 17-40 f/4.0 for the new 16-35 f/4.0 and have absolutely no regrets. It is a terrific lens.

If a 16-35 f/2.8 Mark III had been out at the time of purchase I would have been sorely tempted by that, but it wasn't, and still isn't.

The 16-35 f/4.0 IS really is a great lens.

 

[Sabaki]

Thanks folks, I'm thinking I should aim for the 16-35 f/4.0 as well.

Unless CR posts something about a 16/35 f/2.8 mkiii

 

[Hjalmarg1]

If I was in your situation I might consider Tamron. Three price for their 2.8 version is very attractive and an extra 1mm is very nice bonus. I would use it for a year or two. If by then Canon has an updated 2.8, the price will have come down a little bit and I'd sell the tamron.

+1, if you want to capture star trails, neither the 16-35 f2.8L II nor the 16-35 f4L IS siuts you because of high coma (f2.8L II) and high ISO (f4L IS). The best balanced option found in many reviews for both landscape and night photography and landscapes is the Tamron 15-30 f2.8VR.
I don't shoot start trails but nostly landscapes and architecture, therefore I prefer the 16-35 f4L IS

 

[H. Jones]

I think at the end of the day star trails are kinda subjective, since it depends on a multitude of factors including how clear the sky is. If you look online, you can find hundreds if not thousands of incredible star trails taken at F/4, and sure there's more specialized tools, but both of these lenses are very high quality lenses that will get the job done for you, though they have drawbacks.

I haven't yet done any star trails or star photos with my 16-35mm F/4 IS, but previously with my 17-55 f/2.8 I did do a few, and these were typically shot at F/4 due to the lack of sharpness my lens had at F/2.8. If you get a full frame camera, the higher ISOs that the camera can use could make up for the stopped down aperture as well if you're used to shooting the star trails on a crop sensor.

Here's an F/4 example I found quickly. I don't remember the exact settings(I believe it was 40 1-minute exposures) since it was over a year ago, but it was taken on a 60D with a 17-55mm F/2.8 IS stopped down to F/4. Also note, this is a light-polluted city of about 50,000 people, so I'm sure in a better venue you'd see even more stars.

Not the greatest example in all of history, but I really don't do much work on my tripod since I'm a photojournalist. I absolutely love the 16-35mm f/4 IS though, and it's done some great work for me even if it's a bit dark for inside weddings(why I'm getting a 24-70mm f/2.8 ii), it gets the job done with stellar image quality.

I think at the end of the day, the best you'll get out of any lens is what you put into it, and you really can't go wrong no matter what lens you get when you're looking at these high end professional lenses. I'm not any expert on the subject so I could probably get schooled, but I've seen incredible star trails done with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 and that's less than 1/10th of the price of either lens and definitely not professional.

 

[TheJock]

One other option that I’ve seen used by some of the highly respected regular astro CR contributors is the Samyang 14mm, which is a really cheap option with incredible IQ, but manual focus.

 

[StudentOfLight]

If you are definitely moving to full frame then you should consider the Samyang 14mm for astro-landscapes.

If you are planning on still keeping your APS-C body then you should also consider the (APS-C only) Samyang 16mm f/2 as well. It's will give you a full frame equivalent of roughly 24mm f/2.8, but will be noticably sharper than either the Samyang 14mm or Tamron 15-30 on APS-C. It you also allow you to use front filters on it for daytime photography, which the aforementioned lenses won't allow for.

16mm f/2 resolution test at Lenstip:
http://www.lenstip.com/380.4-Lens_review-Samyang_16_mm_f_2.0_ED_AS_UMC_CS_Image_resolution.html

16mm f/2 coma test at Lenstip:
http://www.lenstip.com/380.7-Lens_review-Samyang_16_mm_f_2.0_ED_AS_UMC_CS_Coma__astigmatism_and_bokeh.html

 

[mangobutter]

If your goal is landscapes, get a 17-40 F4L and Samyang 14mm 2.8. Combined you'll spend about $1000-$1,100. 17-40 is more than sharp enough for landscapes and Samyang 14 is killer for milky way.

Here's a shot on the Samyang 14 and 6D. Not the best but you get the idea:

For $319, a great value. Smashes the Canon 14 2.8 II's performance at a fraction of the price. http://amzn.to/1I2wvGt

 

[Djaaf]

For Star trails, f/4 is not that much an issue.
You can just push the exposure a bit longer, since you basically WANT the stars to move on the frame... and a 30s or a 1min one is not that different if you're worried about movements in the landscape...
So 16-35 f/4 is good enough for that.

For nightscape and milky way shots, you can go 16-35 f/4 + Samyang 14 f/2.8 for less than the price of the 16-35 f/2.8 and better results. Or you can go for the Tamron 15-30, but that means no filters without big cumbersome and expensive filter system from Lee and such...

Another advantage of the 16-35 f/4 is that it share its filter size with the 24-105 f/4L.
If you go for a 6D + 24-105 kit, it's nice.

Your choice.

Djaaf.

 

[Pookie]

Owning the 17-40, 16-35 II, 11-24, and the 16-35 f/4 IS...

I recently bought my second 16-35 f/4 IS because my wife kept grabbing mine... Prob going to sell the 16-35 II here real soon after 12 months of the f/4. The 11-24 is a great lens but honestly, I use the 16-35 f/4 most of the time. Kinda hard to look at the 11-24 and know it's a shite load of cash getting very little use.

 

[SUNDOG04]

This does not answer you question, but I will ask anyway. Must you have a zoom? I suspect you could get the 16-35 f4 zoom and a 24 f2.8 IS for about the same prices as that 16-35 f2.8. I have the 17-40 which is pretty good but doubt it would be good for star trail. The 24 IS has been a great addition to my lenses and I have several neutral density filters for this lens to photograph streams and waterfalls, which would be prohibitively expensive with the 16-35 f2.8. In addition, I don't always need a zoom in which case I will carry the 24 2.8 IS for its small size, portability and excellent sharpness. The 24 2.8 would be good for star trails.

 

[ahsanford]

If I was in your situation I might consider Tamron. Three price for their 2.8 version is very attractive and an extra 1mm is very nice bonus. I would use it for a year or two. If by then Canon has an updated 2.8, the price will have come down a little bit and I'd sell the tamron.

If this is for landscapes 99% of the time, you probably want a front filter ring -- Tamron seems a dubious call without one. I'd stick with the 16-35 f/4L IS, a standard front filter ring, and the entire standard ecosystem of 4x6 filters.

Others will wait for an outrigger like setup like the Nikon 14-24 to be developed for all these new ultrawide zooms, but I imagine that will require larger filters than standard 4x6, and will likely cost more as a result. Seems a high price to pay for (in Tamron's case) just 1 more mm on the wider end.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Just catching all the astro comments. Yeah, the 16-35 f/4L IS is a great lens, but f/4 is f/4.

If astro is a large chunk of what you'll be shooting, think about the crazy fast primes instead -- a zoom will (literally) slow you down.

- A

 

[andrewflo]

I'd also recommend looking at the Tamron 15-30. I owned the Tamron for 3 weeks and then returned it for the Canon 16-35mm f/4 so here's my comments on these two:

The Tamron to me felt like a better lens. f/2.8, extra 1mm, great! But also the images felt sharp, punchy, and vivid. Loved the images I was getting out of the Tamron. Difficult to say if it was sharper than the Canon f/4, but without heavy pixel peeping, I'd say it was at least on par (even at f/2.8 ). Another huge plus was it had significantly less vignetting than the Canon f/4 (again, even at f/2.8 ). These are huge considerations for star trails.

The Tamron's build felt better as well. It felt on par with a Canon 70-200mm f2/8 IS II, I mean SOLID (way better than the Tamron 24-70mm). But... that's where I decided to return it. It was just too big & heavy for me to carry around in a shoulder bag all day. Walking around cities and hiking with it were simply destroying my back/shoulder. Also the lens cap can't be pocketed. The bulk difference between the Canon and Tamron meant to me the difference between carrying 1 lens or 2 lenses in bag.

Also, I primarily picked up an UWA zoom for real estate shooting so I'd never use f/2.8. Even for casual street shooting at night, I was shooting 1/8 second around f/5.6-f/8. I also wanted to be able to use traditional CPL filters for controlling sun reflections while shooting real estate.

Once Canon had a $100 rebate, I was able to pickup the f/4 on CanonPriceWatch for $950... a full $250 cheaper than the Tamron. So I was sold on the exchange.

In the end, I'm positive I made the right decision. I can easily carry the 16-35 f/4 and Tamron 24-70mm in a shoulder bag. And if I need to carry more gear for a serious shoot, I can reserve the large spaces in my big bags for the 70-200.

In your case, the weight may be worth it because you do definitely want f/2.8. Another route may be to look at the Samyang 14mm. I know lots of people rave and rant about that lens for star shooting.

 

[ahsanford]

In the end, I'm positive I made the right decision. I can easily carry the 16-35 f/4 and Tamron 24-70mm in a shoulder bag. And if I need to carry more gear for a serious shoot, I can reserve the large spaces in my big bags for the 70-200.

I really believe with the next-gen f/4 lenses Canon has been offering with Image Stabilization that 'f/4 is the new f/2.8'.

...Unless you shoot sports, portraiture, events or astro.

I love love love the 16-35 F/4L IS and the 24-70 f/4L IS -- both light, sharp, have IS, have USM, are weathersealed and are well-built. I find them head and shoulders over the 17-40 f/4L and the 24-105 f/4L IS that preceded them. There is nothing 'budget' about them.

- A

 

[RGF]

In the end, I'm positive I made the right decision. I can easily carry the 16-35 f/4 and Tamron 24-70mm in a shoulder bag. And if I need to carry more gear for a serious shoot, I can reserve the large spaces in my big bags for the 70-200.

I really believe with the next-gen f/4 lenses Canon has been offering with Image Stabilization that 'f/4 is the new f/2.8'.

...Unless you shoot sports, portraiture, events or astro.

I love love love the 16-35 F/4L IS and the 24-70 f/4L IS -- both light, sharp, have IS, have USM, are weathersealed and are well-built. I find them head and shoulders over the 17-40 f/4L and the 24-105 f/4L IS that preceded them. There is nothing 'budget' about them.

- A

I have the 16-35 F4 and it is a great lens. SO the 24-70 F2.8 II. I got the 24-70 before the F4 came out.

If canon came up with 14/15-35 F2.8 (IS not required) I would trade up if IQ matched the current 16-35 F4.

 

[ahsanford]

I have the 16-35 F4 and it is a great lens. SO the 24-70 F2.8 II. I got the 24-70 before the F4 came out.

If canon came up with 14/15-35 F2.8 (IS not required) I would trade up if IQ matched the current 16-35 F4.

It won't be under 16mm, I don't think. All common sense would imply that a 16-35 f/2.8L III will eventually come. The wider than 16mm zoom camp already has the 11-24 and 8-15 Fisheye. Dropping the current 16-36 2.8 down to 14-15 would almost certainly mean the end of a front filter ring, which would likely anger current users. I could be wrong, though.

I continue to be amazed by folks on other threads/websites who are fired up about the Tamron 15-30 VC -- by any measure, a fine lens -- only to lament not having a front filter ring. That single handedly makes it DOA for me, but I appreciate that dedicated astro/sports/events folks might not care.

- A

 

[jeffa4444]

I have the Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS and the Canon EF 17-40mm F4L and the 16-35mm lens is far superior out in the corners and has way less in cromatic abberations. I dont really use the 17-40mm any longer.