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
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Urban Life & Travel Talk 
Thread started 02 Sep 2017 (Saturday) 03:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35 vs 24-35

 
ericz34
Member
Avatar
70 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Jul 2016
Location: LA
     
Sep 02, 2017 03:04 |  #1

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,682 posts
Gallery: 1085 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7988
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Sep 02, 2017 05:02 |  #2

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,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ericz34
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
70 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Jul 2016
Location: LA
     
Sep 02, 2017 05:37 as a reply to  @ MalVeauX's post |  #3

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
battletone
Senior Member
Avatar
503 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 66
Joined Sep 2009
Post edited 8 months ago by battletone.
     
Sep 03, 2017 08:15 |  #4

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.


Cameras: 5D Mark IV, EOS 3, Elan 7
Lenses:15mm 2.8 fisheye, 16-35mm 2.8L II, 24-70mm 2.8L II, 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
ericz34
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
70 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Jul 2016
Location: LA
     
Sep 04, 2017 02:27 as a reply to  @ battletone's post |  #5

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,190 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 3249
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Sep 04, 2017 02:30 |  #6

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.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ericz34
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
70 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Jul 2016
Location: LA
     
Sep 04, 2017 02:41 as a reply to  @ Scrumhalf's post |  #7

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
2,953 posts
Likes: 151
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Sep 19, 2017 07:03 |  #8

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.....


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
tongard
Senior Member
351 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 33
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Gloucestershire England
Post edited 7 months ago by tongard.
     
Oct 07, 2017 07:57 |  #9

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.


Canon 6d, 7d2.
Canon 50 1.4, 28mm 2.8 is , 24-85, 24-105, 70-200 f4 is
Sigma 150-600

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
s1a1om
Senior Member
Avatar
404 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 323
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Hartford, CT, USA
Post edited 7 months ago by s1a1om.
     
Oct 08, 2017 16:24 |  #10

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

tongard wrote in post #18467745 (external link)
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.


Constructive criticism is always appreciated.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mswobo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,287 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 197
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Illinois
     
Oct 15, 2017 09:14 |  #11

Nick5 wrote in post #18455597 (external link)
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.


Nikon D850 and a bunch of stuff, I have learned a lot here when I was shooting Canon, staying to keep learning..."Every time I set up I learn something new".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,616 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Likes: 477
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
Post edited 7 months ago by ejenner.
     
Oct 21, 2017 21:56 |  #12

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?


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

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

5,908 views & 4 likes for this thread
16-35 vs 24-35
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Urban Life & Travel Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is DouglasAZ
687 guests, 282 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.