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

16-35 vs 24-35

 
ericz34
Member
ericz34's Avatar
Joined Jul 2016
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 registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
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) :: Canon 17-40L For Sale! $380! | Canon 5D Classic Bundle for Sale! $250!

LOG IN TO REPLY
ericz34
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
ericz34's Avatar
Joined Jul 2016
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
battletone's Avatar
Joined Sep 2009
Post has been edited 3 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, 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
ericz34
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
ericz34's Avatar
Joined Jul 2016
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
Scrumhalf's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
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
ericz34's Avatar
Joined Jul 2016
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
Nick5's Avatar
2,911 posts
Joined Mar 2007
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
Joined Apr 2008
Gloucestershire England
Post has been edited 2 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
s1a1om's Avatar
Joined Jul 2013
Hartford, CT, USA
Post has been edited 2 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
mswobo's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
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.


"Every time I set up I learn something new".

LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
ejenner's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Denver, CO
Post has been edited 1 month 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 registered member)

2,993 views & 4 likes for this thread
16-35 vs 24-35
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Urban Life & Travel 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 0.00085 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member is winnert
834 guests, 487 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017