16-35 vs 24-35

So I recently purchased a 6D! I enjoy landscape and Astrophotography, but lately have been doing a lot of cityscape/urban photography at night. I live by Downtown Los Angeles which is where I tend to shoot.
Between these two lenses I like the 16-35 f2.8 but can't afford that sucker. Used, I did a quick search and saw the sigma 24-35 f2 and the 16-35 f4 go for about $750ish.. because I shoot ar night I'd prefer the sigma but the focal range seems limited at 24mm.. and the f4 on the canon is a bit of a bummer. Looking for any advise between the two.

Currently I only have a 50mm, went up from aps-c so I'll be building my full frame lens lineup.

I'd save and pinch pennies and get a 16-35 F4L IS. The F2~2.8 on an ultrawide is not as critical for a lot of things when you have image stabilization (especially modern 4+ stop) and the ISO performance of the 6D. The 16-35 F4L IS is sharp wide open, excellent, and with IS can gobble light handheld at night just fine. F4 is fine for astro on a tripod with the 6D's ISO performance. F2 and F2.8 seem like they would be great for astro purposes, but really, F4 is fine, and a lot of times you'll find you stop down a hair anyways.

Used or Refurb sales. Buy once, hurt once. Buy something else and you'll spend more money as you end up getting it later anyways (or similar).

Very best,

Thanks! I didn't realize that the canon (F4) had image stabilization! That alone makes it worth it for me.

Also the 2.8 doesn't work for stars very well. Trails are not bad, but you have to stop down to F4 anyways to eliminate the triangle stars at the edge of 16mm. Hard to imagine any stars near LA though to start with. I guess I am spoiled being 2 hours from Flagstaff, AZ.

Haha true, we travel quite a bit for some decent dark sky's. Usually Joshua tree is our best bet within 2 hours lol

Another vote for the 16-35 F4. It had really become one of my most used lenses. Look in the 16-35 F4 image thread for a bunch of great photos, including some of mine from Italy. Saving up for it is the best option.

Thanks! I've been trying to do some research and its such a highly praised lens! I'm definitely going to save up for it but will probably go the used market route.

As my oldest son lives in Downtown L.A. I like walking around with both my 16-35 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/4 L IS. The older I get, I appreciate the smaller lighter f/4 compared to my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II, which has been staying home more and more. The 16-35 f/4 L IS has allowed me to capture stunning Hand Held images at1/10" 1/15" in the Basilica's of Rome where Tripods are prohibited. For me, IS over f/2.8........now if they were both available in one lens.....

I recently went on holiday to Italy and Venice . I have a canon 6d and a few lenses . I wanted to carry reasonably lightly and was torn as to what lens to take.
I ended up taking 16-35 f4 is , 24-105 f4 is and 70-200 f4 is . After 1500 shots + the outcome surprised me.
All are outstanding lens in my opinion but the lens I used the most was the 24-105 with some stunning results.
I really though before I went that I would probably just use 16-35 and 70-200 but not the case.

Don't get me wrong I got some cracking photos with the 16-35 but I used the 24-105 more.
In your case shooting at night the 16-35 f4 would be the lens to use.

I know this is slightly off topic, but...

tongard wrote in post #18467745
I ended up taking 16-35 f4 is , 24-105 f4 is and 70-200 f4 is . After 1500 shots + the outcome surprised me.
All are outstanding lens in my opinion but the lens I used the most was the 24-105 with some stunning results.
I really though before I went that I would probably just use 16-35 and 70-200 but not the case.

Interesting. With a similar selection of lenses. I found that I predominantly use the 16-35. Occasionally use the 70-200 (f2.8). And almost never use the 24-105. To each his own.

Nick5 wrote in post #18455597
As my oldest son lives in Downtown L.A. I like walking around with both my 16-35 f/4 L IS and 70-200 f/4 L IS. The older I get, I appreciate the smaller lighter f/4 compared to my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II, which has been staying home more and more. The 16-35 f/4 L IS has allowed me to capture stunning Hand Held images at1/10" 1/15" in the Basilica's of Rome where Tripods are prohibited. For me, IS over f/2.8........now if they were both available in one lens.....

I feel the same....I shoot a lot in Chicago.... My 16-35 is my go to lens....stunning....I sold my 70-200 2.8 because of the weight and use my 70-200 F4 now on the street a lot more.

The IS on the 16-35 f4 is very good. You basically run into he issue of how long you can hold a camera relatively still - like 1/2s is only 3 stops from 1/16, but you still need to hold the camera withing the range of the IS. If you can brace against something 1s shots or longer should be possible. The IS does not drift like some on a tripod either, so it won't drift over 1-2s.

It's still not the best for Astro though, f2.8 or faster would be better for that. Maybe save for a used Rokinon 14mm after the 16-35 f4 is?