Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Pets Talk
Thread started 29 Nov 2015 (Sunday) 17:10
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

16-35 f4 vs 2.8 ii - dog photography

 
CaPpedDoG
Member
Joined Dec 2012
Victoria BC, Canada
Nov 29, 2015 17:10 |  #1

Looking to buy a 16-35mm for dog photography. I currently have a 50mm 1.4 and 70-200mm 2.8. Trying to decide between the 16-35 f4 and 16-35 2.8 ii. I'm leaning towards the cheaper f4. Any suggestions? Cheers




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
s1a1om
Senior Member
s1a1om's Avatar
Joined Jul 2013
Nov 30, 2015 16:00 |  #2

Everything I've seen seems to indicate the f4 is significantly sharper. It's also the newer of the two. It's cheaper. However, you do lose a couple stops of light. I'm recently made the decision to get the f4 as my next lens.

Do you shoot the dogs in bright light outdoors or in a dimly lit basement?


Constructive criticism is always appreciated.

LOG IN TO REPLY
CaPpedDoG
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Joined Dec 2012
Victoria BC, Canada
Dec 01, 2015 12:45 as a reply to s1a1om's post |  #3

I shoot pretty much all outdoors. So ya, I think I'll order the f4. Thanks :)




LOG IN TO REPLY
nqjudo
Goldmember
nqjudo's Avatar
2,675 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Canada
Dec 01, 2015 13:17 |  #4

I think you're going in the right direction. I do a lot of dog photography and I rarely used either the 2.8 or the 4 wide open. If you want to completely isolate the pooch from the background you can get some very shallow DOF with your 70-200. Good luck with the purchase and happy shooting.


No photographer is as good as the simplest camera. - Edward Steichen.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Nick5's Avatar
2,880 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Philadelphia Suburbs
Apr 07, 2016 08:02 |  #5

I bought the 16-35 f/4 L IS last summer as an upgrade to the 17-40 f/4 L, which I am also keeping as a backup.
Like others have said, the corner sharpness is that. Having the IS will allow you to shoot hand held at slower Shutter Speeds. This will certainly add to its versatility.
Enjoy the new toy!


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

LOG IN TO REPLY
battletone
Senior Member
battletone's Avatar
Joined Sep 2009
Apr 13, 2016 11:31 as a reply to s1a1om's post |  #6

1 stop.


Cameras: 5D Mark IV, EOS 3, Elan 7
Lenses:15mm 2.8 fisheye, 16-35mm 2.8L II, 50mm 1.2L, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L, 70-200L II IS
Tripod: Gitzo GT2531, Arca-Swiss Z1, RRS PC-LR
Lights: Photogenic PL1250 x2, 1500SL x1, Canon 580ex, YN 568ex II

LOG IN TO REPLY
Nethawked
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2014
Virginia, USA
Apr 18, 2016 12:36 |  #7

I've bought and returned 1 refurbished and 1 used Canon 16-35mm f/2.8. Neither was even close to the image quality I get with my f/4. If you must have, I'd recommend the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 with much better IQ, but it's bulky and heavy. That said, I agree with others here, the f/4 looks to be all you will need. Great lens, congrats on the choice.




LOG IN TO REPLY
RPCrowe
Cream of the Crop
RPCrowe's Avatar
7,580 posts
Joined Nov 2005
San Diego County, California, USA
May 18, 2016 13:33 |  #8

This is swimming against the tide... I really don't like using WA lenses for dog or people photography because of the distortion caused by shooting close. I prefer a normal to tele lens...


See my images at http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
Myth-informed
17,852 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Joined Mar 2009
Issaquah, WA USA
May 18, 2016 13:47 |  #9

While the 16-35 f/4 seems to be, by all regards, a stupidly good lens, I would be afraid of the same thing that RPCrowe mentions. I would consider a longer lens (135, 70-200, etc) and standing farther away to avoid distortion from being as close as you'd have to be for a WA framing.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

LOG IN TO REPLY
phototastic
Junior Member
23 posts
Joined Jun 2016
Jun 30, 2016 10:28 |  #10

I find myself using focal lengths over 50mm for most of my pet photography but I don't think you could go wrong with the newer 16-35 f4.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
Joined May 2011
Gainesville, Florida
Jun 30, 2016 16:35 |  #11

RPCrowe wrote in post #18011243 (external link)
This is swimming against the tide... I really don't like using WA lenses for dog or people photography because of the distortion caused by shooting close. I prefer a normal to tele lens...

This would my view as well, even though I own the 16-35 f/4 IS. I use it for landscapes. I also have a the much maligned 24-105 f/4 and it works for me. Lightroom corrects the lens issues with one click. I prefer the range for people and pets. My 100-400ii gets more use because birds are usually my main focus (pun intended).


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1D IV | 6Dc | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS |100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition

LOG IN TO REPLY
Gungnir
Senior Member
Gungnir's Avatar
Joined Sep 2005
Suffolk, England
Jul 02, 2016 05:57 |  #12

I did a lot of dog photography years ago. The one shot they all wanted was the classic wide angle of dog looking in to lens for that distorted look made popular by ad companies.

It was the one they typically framed...


Steve
'Be the person your dog thinks you are'

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,949 views & 6 likes for this thread
16-35 f4 vs 2.8 ii - dog photography
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Pets Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00119 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is hawkeye69
991 guests, 459 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016