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

 
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 08, 2014 04:41 |  #16

davidfarina wrote in post #17018236 (external link)
Not if you dont use a tripod, this is where the IS excells

If I am shooting landscape/architecture​, I am using a tripod. And in the churches of Europe where I couldn't, I still got sharp images handheld at 1/8sec with my old 10-22.

I'm in the "don't need IS at wide focal lengths" camp. 50mm above is when I find it would help. I am not trying to defend the 2.8, I am stating why I will be keeping the lens (I still have 1.5 weeks left before I can return it if I change my mind, but won't be).


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Jul 09, 2014 05:09 |  #17

kobeson wrote in post #17018265 (external link)
If I am shooting landscape/architecture​, I am using a tripod. And in the churches of Europe where I couldn't, I still got sharp images handheld at 1/8sec with my old 10-22.

I'm in the "don't need IS at wide focal lengths" camp. 50mm above is when I find it would help. I am not trying to defend the 2.8, I am stating why I will be keeping the lens (I still have 1.5 weeks left before I can return it if I change my mind, but won't be).

I was in the same camp. But since ive shot thousands of pictures on my 16-35 2.8ii i must say, the keeper rate wouldve been much more with IS (i often shoot at night)


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
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jul 09, 2014 17:54 |  #18

How about you sell yours, and I keep mine ;)


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
swldstn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Maine
     
Jul 09, 2014 18:57 |  #19

Right now I have no plans to sell mine and go to the f/4 IS version. Have to admit I'm waiting to see if Sony/Zeiss can get it right with theirs for the A7R. I'm trying to turn that into a landscape camera. I use my Canons as the go to camera for my event, sports, wildlife, portraiture, and macro work. It is still my main landscape camera as well so the 16-35L II does get used. I am trying the A7R out for landscape with it's higher resolution for large prints and possibly travel but without a good 16-35 IS it will never happen.
Their 24-70 was a real bust in some ways but they did keep it small. Don't know how it compares to the Canon 24-70 f/4L IS. I know its can't touch my Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II which I love.

I admit I own too many cameras and systems but I'm trying to find a camera for recreational travel that is lighter and small than my 1DX and gripped 5D III. Right now I'm using a Fuji X-E2/X-T1 combo even though its not FF is offers a great group of lenses. Their 14mm f/2.8 (21mm equivalent) and 10-24mm f/4 OIS are both great lenses for an APS-C system for landscape and architecture.

So I'm in no rush to change anything.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,054 posts
Likes: 181
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Jul 10, 2014 08:58 |  #20

Since I just acquired the Canon 17-40 f/4 L in January, I was eager to see the "New Wide". Well just yesterday I had a chance to compare the new 16-35 f/4 L IS with my 17-40 f/4 L on my 5D Mark III..........it's really, really nice.....


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
Elton ­ Balch
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 86
Joined Dec 2005
     
Jul 10, 2014 09:51 |  #21

Nick5 wrote in post #17022691 (external link)
Since I just acquired the Canon 17-40 f/4 L in January, I was eager to see the "New Wide". Well just yesterday I had a chance to compare the new 16-35 f/4 L IS with my 17-40 f/4 L on my 5D Mark III..........it's really, really nice.....

IMHO I think lots of photographers will be switching from the 17-40 F/4 to the 16-35 F/4 IS based on my own quick comparison of the two and I'd have to think that was Canon's intent. I can't imagine they wanted to cut into sales of the 16-35 F/2.8, but some believe the new F/4 is optically superior. I've never owned any version of the 16-35 F/2.8 so I can't comment from personal experience, but the new F/4 with IS is a REALLY nice lens!


Elton Balch
5D Mark III, 7D Mark II, 24 mm f/1.4 L, 35 mm f/1.4 L, 50 mm f/1.2 L, 85 mm f/1.2 L, 100 mm f/2.8 macro, 135 mm f/2 L, 300 mm f/4 L, 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS ii, 580 EX Flash, Speedlight 600 EX RT, 1.4 extender, extension tubes and other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,550 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5589
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jul 10, 2014 11:04 |  #22

swldstn wrote in post #17021719 (external link)
Right now I have no plans to sell mine and go to the f/4 IS version. Have to admit I'm waiting to see if Sony/Zeiss can get it right with theirs for the A7R. I'm trying to turn that into a landscape camera. I use my Canons as the go to camera for my event, sports, wildlife, portraiture, and macro work. It is still my main landscape camera as well so the 16-35L II does get used. I am trying the A7R out for landscape with it's higher resolution for large prints and possibly travel but without a good 16-35 IS it will never happen.

well stick with the canon. it works on the A7R, while a dedicated FE lens wont work on canon, so why bother? Seems like a no brainer.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swldstn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Maine
     
Jul 10, 2014 13:29 |  #23

Charlie wrote in post #17022953 (external link)
well stick with the canon. it works on the A7R, while a dedicated FE lens wont work on canon, so why bother? Seems like a no brainer.

Gave that some thought originally but it maybe additional weight but don't know for sure. I'm willing to wait on the Sony since I already have a canon solution.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,550 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5589
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jul 10, 2014 14:18 |  #24

swldstn wrote in post #17023197 (external link)
Gave that some thought originally but it maybe additional weight but don't know for sure. I'm willing to wait on the Sony since I already have a canon solution.

I dont know if there's anything you can do about the weight, but I'de be interested to see.

sony 24-70mm 430g
canon 24-70 F4 600g

sony 35mm F2.8 120g
canon 40mm F2.8 130g

sony 50mm F1.8 281g
Canon 50mm F1.8 130g
Canon 50mm F1.4 290g

based on comparable lenses, not sure if weight saving will be a valid point. If I had to guess, no more than 200g weight savings with the handicap of not being able to use on your canon body.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,585 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 8388
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jul 10, 2014 14:34 |  #25

Charlie wrote in post #17023290 (external link)
I dont know if there's anything you can do about the weight, but I'de be interested to see.

sony 24-70mm 430g
canon 24-70 F4 600g

sony 35mm F2.8 120g
canon 40mm F2.8 130g

sony 50mm F1.8 281g
Canon 50mm F1.8 130g
Canon 50mm F1.4 290g

based on comparable lenses, not sure if weight saving will be a valid point. If I had to guess, no more than 200g weight savings with the handicap of not being able to use on your canon body.

The space savings comes from not having to use the adapter.


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
swldstn
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Maine
     
Jul 10, 2014 14:55 |  #26

Using my Canon glass with the adapter works great with landscape. The Zeiss 18mm ZE with the adapter is great IMO. So that's my go to solution. I also use the 21mm but that is bigger and heavier. Also since the 16-35 f/4L IS is pretty much the same as the f/2.8L II I'm not driven to switch.


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)

4,003 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 bestmassagerreviews
1015 guests, 386 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.