Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 06 Jul 2014 (Sunday) 18:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
swldstn
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Maine
     
Jul 06, 2014 18:27 |  #1

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?


Steve Waldstein
---------------
Love to Shoot - a Digital SLR (and now a Mirroless ILC) are my weapons of choice
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
CatchingUp
Goldmember
Avatar
1,827 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 332
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Texas
     
Jul 06, 2014 18:29 |  #2

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


Tony
I use Canon gear...have several bodies and lenses and am quite pleased with them.

"A person's gift will make room for itself."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mclaren777
Goldmember
Avatar
1,482 posts
Likes: 84
Joined May 2012
Location: Olympia, WA
     
Jul 06, 2014 20:20 |  #3

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


A simple comparison of sensor technology: Nikon vs. Canon (external link)
A technical comparison of sensor technology: Exposure Latitude (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KnightRT
Member
134 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
     
Jul 06, 2014 20:44 as a reply to  @ mclaren777's post |  #4

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swldstn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Maine
     
Jul 06, 2014 21:20 |  #5

CatchingUp wrote in post #17015300 (external link)
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.


Steve Waldstein
---------------
Love to Shoot - a Digital SLR (and now a Mirroless ILC) are my weapons of choice
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RobDickinson
Goldmember
4,003 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1039
Joined Apr 2010
Location: New Zealand
     
Jul 06, 2014 21:23 |  #6

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


www.HeroWorkshops.com (external link) - www.rjd.co.nz (external link) - www.zarphag.com (external link)
Gear: A7r, 6D, Irix 15mmf2.4 , canon 16-35f4L, Canon 24mm TS-E f3.5 mk2, Sigma 50mm art, 70-200f2.8L, 400L. Lee filters, iOptron IPano, Emotimo TB3, Markins, Feisol, Novoflex, Sirui. etc.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,495 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 8165
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jul 06, 2014 21:41 |  #7

swldstn wrote in post #17015575 (external link)
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.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FerozeK
Senior Member
Avatar
250 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Apr 2012
Location: JHB, South Africa
     
Jul 07, 2014 13:43 |  #8

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Xyclopx
Goldmember
1,714 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 201
Joined Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Jul 07, 2014 15:03 |  #9

KnightRT wrote in post #17015498 (external link)
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.


Dean Chiang (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Blog (external link) | Gear (external link)
My Photos (external link)
Instagram @xyclopx (external link) @feetandeyes (external link) @gastramour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 07, 2014 19:11 |  #10

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


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonygonygo
Senior Member
Avatar
410 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 201
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC USA
     
Jul 07, 2014 19:13 |  #11

...keeping watch on this thread...


5D Mark III | 5D Mark II | 24-70L II | 100L | 70-200 II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swldstn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Maine
     
Jul 07, 2014 19:29 |  #12

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.


Steve Waldstein
---------------
Love to Shoot - a Digital SLR (and now a Mirroless ILC) are my weapons of choice
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 07, 2014 21:52 |  #13

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.


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,997 posts
Gallery: 1450 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9409
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jul 07, 2014 22:12 |  #14

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,


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Jul 08, 2014 04:03 |  #15

kobeson wrote in post #17017811 (external link)
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


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

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

3,989 views & 0 likes for this thread
16-35mm f/4L IS vs f/2.8L II
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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?
Register to forums
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 Ribosio80
791 guests, 347 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.