EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III vs EF 11-24mm f4L

[TheDrift-]

So I have been holding off on an ultra wide waiting for the 16 - 35 mk3, but the price on launch puts it not far away from the 11 24 f4.

So any insight from someone who perhaps has the 16-35 mk2 and the 11 24? How useful in real life is each lens..

I assume the 16 35 mk3 will be all round better than the mk2. I have the 24 70 mk2 so I am good for 24, 2.8 onwards

I probably do as much if not more landscape than event so I am leaning towards the 11 24...but looking at sample images I prefer the 16-35, that I have seen.

 

[privatebydesign]

Whilst it might be stating the obvious the truth is 11-15mm or f2.8-4. The lenses are massively different.

11-24 gives unequaled perspectives, is massive, heavy and difficult to use filters with and can't take a 'protective' UV filter. The 16-35 is traditional in focal length and aperture but is an absolute workhorse reportage style lens.

If you find 16 restrictively narrow, things like real estate, architecture, landscapes etc then the 11-24 is a beautiful lens. If you want a more walk around lens with the possibility of subject separation and better low light performance the 16-35 is the answer.

I owned the 16-35 f2.8 then moved to the much better IQ of the 16-35 f4, then went to the 11-24 for the fov. I'd happily get a 16-35 f2.8 MkIII to compliment the 11-24 if I shot more functions, weddings etc.

 

[TheDrift-]

Whilst it might be stating the obvious the truth is 11-15mm or f2.8-4. The lenses are massively different.

11-24 gives unequaled perspectives, is massive, heavy and difficult to use filters with and can't take a 'protective' UV filter. The 16-35 is traditional in focal length and aperture but is an absolute workhorse reportage style lens.

If you find 16 restrictively narrow, things like real estate, architecture, landscapes etc then the 11-24 is a beautiful lens. If you want a more walk around lens with the possibility of subject separation and better low light performance the 16-35 is the answer.

I owned the 16-35 f2.8 then moved to the much better IQ of the 16-35 f4, then went to the 11-24 for the fov. I'd happily get a 16-35 f2.8 MkIII to compliment the 11-24 if I shot more functions, weddings etc.

If you could have one...the 16-35 f2.8 MkIII or the 11 24...which would you go for?

I know the differences in spec etc, its more trying to figure out which I'd get more use out off...Plus i figure the 16 35 mk3 will drop a lot in price where as I can see the 11 24 holding its value better...still guess its a nice problem to have trying to decide between the 2!!

 

[privatebydesign]

Whilst it might be stating the obvious the truth is 11-15mm or f2.8-4. The lenses are massively different.

11-24 gives unequaled perspectives, is massive, heavy and difficult to use filters with and can't take a 'protective' UV filter. The 16-35 is traditional in focal length and aperture but is an absolute workhorse reportage style lens.

If you find 16 restrictively narrow, things like real estate, architecture, landscapes etc then the 11-24 is a beautiful lens. If you want a more walk around lens with the possibility of subject separation and better low light performance the 16-35 is the answer.

I owned the 16-35 f2.8 then moved to the much better IQ of the 16-35 f4, then went to the 11-24 for the fov. I'd happily get a 16-35 f2.8 MkIII to compliment the 11-24 if I shot more functions, weddings etc.

If you could have one...the 16-35 f2.8 MkIII or the 11 24...which would you go for?

I know the differences in spec etc, its more trying to figure out which I'd get more use out off...Plus i figure the 16 35 mk3 will drop a lot in price where as I can see the 11 24 holding its value better...still guess its a nice problem to have trying to decide between the 2!!

I have one and will keep it even when the other becomes available, the 11-24. But I need/want the unmatched fov, for me and my uses that is far more valuable than the f2.8 vs f4.

What do you own now?

 

[East Wind Photography]

So I have been holding off on an ultra wide waiting for the 16 - 35 mk3, but the price on launch puts it not far away from the 11 24 f4.

So any insight from someone who perhaps has the 16-35 mk2 and the 11 24? How useful in real life is each lens..

I assume the 16 35 mk3 will be all round better than the mk2. I have the 24 70 mk2 so I am good for 24, 2.8 onwards

I probably do as much if not more landscape than event so I am leaning towards the 11 24...but looking at sample images I prefer the 16-35, that I have seen.

For me the big selling point of the 16-35 is the f2.8. I shoot in a lot of low light situations and don't like using a flash. I use led panels when I need some extra fill or ambiance. I've used an f4 lens and really missed the 2.8, especially when the need to stop down presented itself. In many cases I'm already shooting at the acceptable Iso limits of my cameras.

The 11-24 benefits mainly from straighter edges, requiring less post editing and discarding of "edges" which get stretched outside of the useful rectangle. For me, post editing is not a big deal. But I can see where it may be for those shooting architecture exclusively.

I'm looking to get the new 16-35 once my account recovers from the 1dx2 purchase.

 

[Loswr]

its more trying to figure out which I'd get more use out off...

That seems like a question only you can answer.

Personally, I had the 16-35/2.8 II, sold it intending to get the 16-35/4 IS but decided the TS-E 17 would meet my needs better (and it has). My 11-24 arrived last week.

 

[TheDrift-]

Thanks I have 24 70 2.8 mk2 and 24 105 F4 IS, think I will probably pick up the new 24 105 IS as well..

The 24 70 and 70 200 cover a lot of ground for me, but occasionally I have really missed something wider..I was going to get the 16 35 2.8 mk2...but all the rumours at the beginning of the year was that the 16 35 mk3 was only just round the corner..so I have held off..

...I had not really ever considerered the 11 24 up until today...my main thoughts are...

16 35 2.8 mk3
As I have a 24 2.8 all I gain from this is 16 to 24
I suspect as I am buying at release, the price will take a bit of a hammering
However is light so will go in my bag so I'm more likely to have it around
Its 2.8
Can use filters and is fully whether sealed so will handle bashing about a bit better

11 24
I gain 11 to 24
Only F4
Big and heavy less likely to carry it around
Unique shots

hmmmm was just looking to see if anyone had any insights..? Guess its pays your money takes your choice

 

[Loswr]

That about sums it up. In my case, I already had a UWA prime, so for my UWA zoom I wanted someting that would deliver a unique perspective.

I do plan on using a 10-stop ND gel at the back of the 11-24 (something not possible for the TS-E lens, which means I carry around the salad plate filters for it).

 

[mnclayshooter]

its more trying to figure out which I'd get more use out off...

That seems like a question only you can answer.

Personally, I had the 16-35/2.8 II, sold it intending to get the 16-35/4 IS but decided the TS-E 17 would meet my needs better (and it has). My 11-24 arrived last week.

Neuro - I'm curious the deciding factor(s) between 17TS-E and 16-34/4? I've had the 16-35/4 for about 3 months now and absolutely am loving the walk-around/hand-hold-ability of it - where the 17 would require a tripod to get better-than-average results (at least from my limited experience with TS-E's - which admittedly is about 3 hours in total).

 

[privatebydesign]

its more trying to figure out which I'd get more use out off...

That seems like a question only you can answer.

Personally, I had the 16-35/2.8 II, sold it intending to get the 16-35/4 IS but decided the TS-E 17 would meet my needs better (and it has). My 11-24 arrived last week.

Neuro - I'm curious the deciding factor(s) between 17TS-E and 16-34/4? I've had the 16-35/4 for about 3 months now and absolutely am loving the walk-around/hand-hold-ability of it - where the 17 would require a tripod to get better-than-average results (at least from my limited experience with TS-E's - which admittedly is about 3 hours in total).

I had the 16-35 f2.8 first, it's performance, especially in the corners was 'modest'. When the TS-E17 came out I got one, performance from a Canon ultra wide was a revelation and was worth the money without the tilt or shift, those features just add to it, it is a truthfully amazing lens and even now it is unmatched though Nikon are supposed to be working on a PCE-19. Obviously without AF the TS-E17, especially when using tilt and shift, suits a comparatively slow and methodical approach, a tripod is a near essential for truly effective use of the lens and while it can be used handheld that isn't it's strong point and unless you are already a committed tripod user it is a big workflow change.

When the 16-35 f4 IS came out I sold the 16-35 f2.8. Again it was a revolution, it is a class busting lens with unbelievably good image quality at any price. The IS is very effective. I did struggle with it at a wedding I shot but that was only because my camera is severely limited in iso performance and I was struggling to get the shutter speed I needed for subject stopping blur free images. The 16-35 f4 IS is the best buy for anybody new to the focal length and who wants a general UWA. Can't recommend it highly enough.

When the 11-24 came out I sold the 16-35 f4 IS, I didn't see any point in owning two UWA f4 lenses. The 11-24 goes to 11, that is it. If you need or want 11-15 then it is the best solution, way better than the 14 MkII prime and the legendary Nikon 14-24 f2.8 where they are comparable and also wide open at widest focal length. But unless you have a compelling need for that extreme focal length, and the truth is compositions at that are very difficult to make interesting, mppix's summary really is spot on.

- unless you know you need 11mm get the EF16-35 f2.8
- unless you know you need f2.8 get the EF16-35 f4 IS

 

[TheDrift-]

well I have cancelled my pre-order for the 16 35 2.8 mk3

and have just ordered the 11 - 24 & 16-35 f4 IS...as the saying goes that should butter many parsnips

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The 11-24L is a very specialist lens and certainly not a general wide lens. The 16-35IIL is a general wide lens and not too suited to a more specialist use, such as precision architecture. Both lenses have their cons and pluses. It's not possible to have a one wide lens that does it all. I've been carrying a number of wide lenses for some time.

 

[mnclayshooter]

Obviously without AF the TS-E17, especially when using tilt and shift, suits a comparatively slow and methodical approach, a tripod is a near essential for truly effective use of the lens and while it can be used handheld that isn't it's strong point and unless you are already a committed tripod user it is a big workflow change.

This was my primary deciding factor. Hand holding is my number one choice as I usually am fairly remote or at least don't want to be carrying anything with any significant weight to it... food and sometimes water take priority over camera gear in most cases, depending on the location. If I can't easily hang it off my body somehow, it doesn't come with.

16-35/4 is a HUGE step up in quality from my standpoint... had a 17-35 which was not that stellar, and borrowed and then very shortly owned a 17-40 and got rid of it... tried a friend's 16-35/2.8 II - liked it but not for the price... got a tamron 17-35/2.8 on craigslist that is actually a respectably sharp lens, even if incredibly loud and somewhat slow to focus... Some of my favorite photos have come from that particular lens. 14mm rokinon prime is in the kit too, but it has it's own special quirks - MF, mustache distortion and filter challenges. 16-35/4 has won the contest for me. 11-24 is a curiosity of mine. I love UWA so I could see owning one... but the cost vs benefit of the 11-15 is a little lost on me right now. Maybe a used one or refurb deal will come down the pipe.

16-35/2.8 III - wait and see??? it might trump the f4 if it has the same sharpness etc with the added benefit of f2.8 - as you said... for the shutter speed benefit.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro - I'm curious the deciding factor(s) between 17TS-E and 16-34/4? I've had the 16-35/4 for about 3 months now and absolutely am loving the walk-around/hand-hold-ability of it - where the 17 would require a tripod to get better-than-average results (at least from my limited experience with TS-E's - which admittedly is about 3 hours in total).

Most of my UWA shooting is architecture when I travel, so a TS-E lens was a pretty easy decision. I usually shoot either at blue hour/night or with a 10-stop ND, so always on a tripod for that.

 

[Ozarker]

well I have cancelled my pre-order for the 16 35 2.8 mk3

and have just ordered the 11 - 24 & 16-35 f4 IS...as the saying goes that should butter many parsnips

It always feels good to click on that "Place Your Order" button doesn't it?

 

[mnclayshooter]

Neuro - I'm curious the deciding factor(s) between 17TS-E and 16-34/4? I've had the 16-35/4 for about 3 months now and absolutely am loving the walk-around/hand-hold-ability of it - where the 17 would require a tripod to get better-than-average results (at least from my limited experience with TS-E's - which admittedly is about 3 hours in total).

Most of my UWA shooting is architecture when I travel, so a TS-E lens was a pretty easy decision. I usually shoot either at blue hour/night or with a 10-stop ND, so always on a tripod for that.

Makes good sense, as usual.