16-35mm f/4L IS vs f/2.8L II

OK, now that the f/4 IS is out, is the f/2.8L II ancient history? Will owners like me need to switch? Since the size and weight are pretty much identical when would you prefer the faster version? lets not talk price since users can get the a really lightly used f/2.8 for the same price as the f/4 IS if the want one, maybe even less. who still wants the f/2.8?

Just curious...if you have the 2.8...why would you 'need' to switch?

I just bought a Rokinon 14mm and I can already tell that my 16-35II is going to start collecting dust.

The f/2.8 is a vastly better event lens. The shutter speed matters more than IS at the wide focals and it's nice to have some subject isolation. By counter, if you're doing mostly handheld shots of stuff that doesn't move (particularly where more DOF is probably beneficial, like evening landscapes without a tripod), the f/4 version will be preferable.

CatchingUp wrote in post #17015300
Just curious...if you have the 2.8...why would you 'need' to switch?

Not sure I feel that I have to. For improved corner focus I moved on to the Zeiss ZE 18mm, ZE 21mm, and TS-E 24mm. So my landscape needs are met when I'm able to take a tripod.

Have to admit I haven't used the16-35mm f/2.8L II much for events. I tend to use my 24-70mm f/2.8L II.

Just wondering what others think the faster lens excels at now that it's younger prettier cousin in now out.

It still excelles at everything it did before. F2.8 in a wide zoom.

swldstn wrote in post #17015575
Not sure I feel that I have to. For improved corner focus I moved on to the Zeiss ZE 18mm, ZE 21mm, and TS-E 24mm. So my landscape needs are met when I'm able to take a tripod.

Have to admit I haven't used the16-35mm f/2.8L II much for events. I tend to use my 24-70mm f/2.8L II.

Just wondering what others think the faster lens excels at now that it's younger prettier cousin in now out.

Same here. UWA lenses aren't very good event lenses as they often don't have enough reach to shoot an event from a distance where you don't become a distraction. I've used UWA for weddings for years, but they are more special purpose lenses that I used to shoot landscapes of venues, set-ups and what not, or when I wanted an UWA focal length for creative purposes.

Locally the 2.8 is on sale for about $100 more than the new one. Im looking at all the images being shot but I still think that I would get more use out of a 24mm TSE for the kind of work I do. And I can always shift it to about 14.4mm. I still dont see why you would need to switch if you have a 2.8, it produces the exact same quality it did last month.

KnightRT wrote in post #17015498
The f/2.8 is a vastly better event lens. The shutter speed matters more than IS at the wide focals and it's nice to have some subject isolation. By counter, if you're doing mostly handheld shots of stuff that doesn't move (particularly where more DOF is probably beneficial, like evening landscapes without a tripod), the f/4 version will be preferable.

to add to this... i was at a restaurant/bar this weekend watching friends play jazz. even @ 2.8 iso 12800 was needed to keep shutter speed fast enough. there's no way the f4 can make an acceptable image under those circumstances.

i'll probably buy myself this lens for christmas, cause it seems great for landscapes, but i'm definitely keeping both. the 16-35 2.8 ii will be replaced if, and only if, canon comes out with a newer version or the fabled 14-24 2.8.

16-35 isn't just for Landscape photography, it is as simple as that.

...keeping watch on this thread...

To all.

Yes, the 16-35mm f/2.8L II is as good as it was a month ago. The new lens from Canon did not make it worse. As I've stated earlier I've tended to move to primes for my landscape and architectural work so I don't use the lens for that purpose typically. I primarily use it for travel now when I really have to reduce the number of lenses I can travel with. Lately I haven't travelled a lot either so for me only I'm trying to explore what other things I can do with this lens. Some responders do use it effectively for event work. My question for those users are "do you use it more from 24-35 or below 24? I already stated that I personally like my 24-70 for event work more. Looking at some recent work from wedding shooters I can see where it fits in there (just reviewed pictures from my son's wedding that another local professional did). I have to admit I've often struggled to realize great UWA images. I don't often see the world that way.

By the way I want to thank all of you that have taken the time to weight in with opinions and comments. For me this a great place to test your thoughts and get feedback especially if your not thin skinned.

Me personally, I only bought my 16-35 in the past 3 weeks. I was keen to see how the f4 lens tested, and it seems to test well.

The way I see it, if you are shooting landscapes/architectur​e, you would be shooting at f8-f22. And within that range, the differences between the lenses are negligible. In particular at f11, there is only minute differences in corner sharpness.

Both lenses are great stopped down, the f4 will not do f2.8 though, and I have been burned in the past with f4 lenses to be honest - on paid work too I might add.

So for me, it is f2.8 or nothing from now on. If I am shooting landscape/architecture​, I stop down to f11 and get 98% of what the f4 lens would get me. I would never use f4 as a wide aperture as it just isn't wide enough, so I am keeping my f2.8 lens for the times I need a) the shutter speed or b) the subject isolation. IS cannot do either of those things on an f4 lens.

Heya,

You either need F2.8 or you don't. If you don't know if you need F2.8 or not, you probably don't need it. It's that simple. The new F4L IS version isn't replacing anything. People who need F2.8 still need F2.8, losing a stop of light, and thinking IS will cover it, is not going to happen. IS does nothing for things that move. So many people still need F2.8.

Personally I don't see a need in my bag for either, with the 14mm F2.8 Rokinon. I don't need AF, so I don't need more than that.

Very best,

kobeson wrote in post #17017811
Me personally, I only bought my 16-35 in the past 3 weeks. I was keen to see how the f4 lens tested, and it seems to test well.

The way I see it, if you are shooting landscapes/architectur​e, you would be shooting at f8-f22. And within that range, the differences between the lenses are negligible. In particular at f11, there is only minute differences in corner sharpness.

Both lenses are great stopped down, the f4 will not do f2.8 though, and I have been burned in the past with f4 lenses to be honest - on paid work too I might add.

So for me, it is f2.8 or nothing from now on. If I am shooting landscape/architecture​, I stop down to f11 and get 98% of what the f4 lens would get me. I would never use f4 as a wide aperture as it just isn't wide enough, so I am keeping my f2.8 lens for the times I need a) the shutter speed or b) the subject isolation. IS cannot do either of those things on an f4 lens.

Not if you dont use a tripod, this is where the IS excells