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 12 Sep 2014 (Friday) 20:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35 f4 L vs 24L II

 
OldSchool
Member
Avatar
223 posts
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Maryland, USA
     
Sep 12, 2014 20:02 |  #1

Hi guys,

I'm having a hard time trying to decide on my next lens. I have never owned an UWA other than the 20 2.8 which I sold some time ago, and am not sure how often the 16-35 f4 would be used...but those reviews and images I've seen are making it a very tempting choice. On the other hand, I shoot professionally (sports, events, and the occasional wedding), and quite often in low light. I also enjoy night photography (star trails, etc) which makes the 24 L II an equally tempting offer, and something I will eventually buy even if I go with the zoom for now.

I'm looking to hear from those who have used both and the pros and cons of each.


Gear: 5D3, 6D, 7D, 24-105 f/4L, 70-200 f/4L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 50 f/1.2L, 300 f/4L, tons of other zoom and prime lenses, lots of lighting equipment, and enough patience to get the job done right

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,086 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Sep 12, 2014 20:53 |  #2

Mine arrives Monday. I'll let you know my thoughts.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
a911s
Mostly Lurking
18 posts
Joined Sep 2014
     
Sep 12, 2014 21:18 as a reply to  @ Talley's post |  #3

I've been a full time pro for over 20 years, shooting Leica and Canon mostly. The 16-35 f4 IS L is the first Canon UWA zoom that matches my other lenses in performance. It has incredible micro-contrast, even under difficult situations, and is very sharp in the center at f4. The corners when stopped down to f8 are also very sharp. As long as you do not use a filter, it does not flare when pointed at the sun and creates a perfect 18 pt star when stopped down. The 24 f4 L II has similar performance, and I also carry it for low light, along with a Leica M9-P and 35 f2. The rest of my standard kit is a Canon 50 f1.4 and 70-200 f2.8 IS L II.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Sep 12, 2014 23:09 |  #4

I own both. to me they are two entirely different lenses which excel at different things, they are both optically fantastic, and that should not be your determining factor. for low light and wedding, nightscapes the prime is clearly the better choice. for landscape, street walk around, and maybe video the zoom is better. you should also consider the 16-35 2.8 II, if you want a compromise to have a zoom but still do low light and event. It is certainly not optically as good as the new lens, but a stop faster, which gives you more options.


My Flickr (external link)
Gear List
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205576

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
InfiniteDivide
"I wish to be spared"
Avatar
2,844 posts
Gallery: 265 photos
Likes: 217
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Kawasaki, Japan
Post edited over 3 years ago by InfiniteDivide.
     
Sep 13, 2014 04:08 |  #5

^ As other users have said....
While the 24mm FL sits right in the middle of the zoom's range, they create entirely different final images.
What I mean is they complement each other. I would not 'replace' my 24 L II with the 16-35L f4 IS
I love my 24L II Using it wide open as a walk around, it creating a '3D pop' that is amazing.
I am seriously considering adding the new zoom to me gear bag, it is the only lens I would add.
The 16-35L offers a significantly wider view that is unlike the 24L II and IS to boot.
Not to mention with a turn of the wrist, it is a 35mm f4 IS. A good general lens similar to the 35 f2 IS although slower.

After describing it, I must resist the strong urge to go buy it. My own words are talking me into it......


James Patrus
6D | 16-35L F4 | 24L II | 50L | 100L | |  -> Website (external link) & Gallery (external link)
For Sale:Canon 16-35mm f4 IS l Do you enjoy Super Famicom games? (external link) PM me directly.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dynamitetony
Goldmember
Avatar
1,023 posts
Likes: 30
Joined Sep 2007
Location: london UK
     
Sep 13, 2014 07:14 |  #6

im in similar situation , I need something wider and also considering 16-35, the 24mm or a 24-70 ii .

but i would want the 2.8 version of the 16-35 , is the F4 one much different (apart from the aperture) ?


5Dmk4 : 5Dmk3: Sigma 24mm F1.4 :Sigma 35mm F1.4 : Canon 50mm F1.4 : Canon 85mm F1.8 : Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro : Canon 24-105 F4 : Canon 70-200 F2.8L mkii : Flashes, lights & Stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Canon ­ Bob
Goldmember
2,056 posts
Likes: 51
Joined May 2007
Location: Poitou-Charentes, France
     
Sep 13, 2014 07:23 |  #7

dynamitetony wrote in post #17151639 (external link)
...but i would want the 2.8 version of the 16-35 , is the F4 one much different (apart from the aperture) ?

The corners are noticeably better on the f/4. I've got one for use on my IR converted bodies to replace the 17-40. IR, especially at 720nm, is pretty good at showing sharpness and contrast weakness and the f/2.8 version (and 17-40) aren't brilliant in the corners of FF images....the f/4 looks like a big improvement. Of course, I'm shooting at f/5.6-f/8 and this is perhaps only valid for folk buying this for "typical" landscape usage.

Bob


1Dx2 (2), 5DSR, 1Ds3, 1D4, 5D2(590nm), 5D2(720nm) EF600 EF400 EF300-II EF300 EF200 EF200-II EF180L EF135L EF100 EF85-II EF50L TS-E17/4 TS-E24L-II TS-E45 TS-E90 MP-E65 EF70-200-II EF24-70/2.8-II EF16-35/4 EF8-15/4 EF11-24/4 Zeiss 15/2.8 21/2.8 25/2 28/2 35/1.4 35/2 50/2 85/1.4 100/2 135/2 T/C's L-SC & a WIFE!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dynamitetony
Goldmember
Avatar
1,023 posts
Likes: 30
Joined Sep 2007
Location: london UK
     
Sep 13, 2014 07:34 |  #8

thanks bob. for me it would be to use wide open .


5Dmk4 : 5Dmk3: Sigma 24mm F1.4 :Sigma 35mm F1.4 : Canon 50mm F1.4 : Canon 85mm F1.8 : Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro : Canon 24-105 F4 : Canon 70-200 F2.8L mkii : Flashes, lights & Stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Sep 13, 2014 09:42 |  #9

dynamitetony wrote in post #17151652 (external link)
thanks bob. for me it would be to use wide open .

you have to be sensible about it. Its how much corner wide open performance matters wide open for your use. If I were shooting events/weddings, I would get the 2.8 hands down. when I have used the lens at parties, I have loved it who cares about corners at 2.8 in people/event photography? when I was shooting landscapes, is where I really see the difference with the new lens.
You also have the option of picking up the rokinon 24 1.4 for about 400, which is atually a better nightscape lens, as it has less coma. its a lot cheaper. Not my choice for weddings or events, as I find AF very useful.

also if corner sharpness is very important to you, you can look at tokina 16-28 2.8 which turns in better performance in the corners. Its bigger and hevier, and a lot cheaper. I see it in the used market for around 550


My Flickr (external link)
Gear List
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205576

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Elton ­ Balch
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 86
Joined Dec 2005
     
Sep 13, 2014 12:06 as a reply to  @ kevindar's post |  #10

You won't be pleased with the 24 L II for astrophotography. There is way more coma than I thought I would experience but it is otherwise a very nice wide angle if f/1.4 is important to you. The 16-35 f/4 L is just a supurb lens which just blew my 17-40 f/4 L away. I have no personal experience with the 16-35 f/2.8 but many reviewers favor the new f/4 version.


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
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,461 posts
Gallery: 126 photos
Likes: 1277
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Sep 13, 2014 12:13 |  #11

Please take Kevindar's suggestion........

1 stop faster 16-35 f/2.8mk2 will give you faster shutter speeds that NO "IS" will ever provide you. I don't think its acceptable to have motion blur in photos unless it's totally intentional. There will be a time where the light is "just" enough for high ISO photography with an f/2.8 UWA zoom.

This is were the 24Lmk2 will provide you faster shutter speeds when you are without a doubt in very low light.

Whenever I'm shooting an event where I'm not certain what kind of light I'll be shooting in I'll lug a f/2.8 zoom and 85mm and 24mm prime. 50mm seems too long for my shooting style.

In your gearlist a 35mm and 16-35Lmk2 f/2.8 would be great tools for shooting events. Try sticking one of your lenses at 24mm and see if that suites your style. F/4 zooms IMO are too slow for events unless you'll be relying on fill flash to stop action. Perhaps I should say "more headroom" for versatility.....


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MatthewK
Goldmember
Avatar
4,210 posts
Gallery: 781 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 13498
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Sep 13, 2014 12:53 |  #12

I own both of these lenses as well. Ever since buying the zoom, the 24L II hasn't been used all that much, but I think that's just a matter of the zoom being new to my lineup, whereas the prime has been here for a few years. But, what matters is when I am deciding on what to take in my bag when I'm going out to shoot:

So far, if I am doing a general walk around, without a tripod, the 16-35 has been with me 99% more than the 24L. I took the 24L out once, just to shoot with something different and make myself feel like I needed the prime for something. The 16-35 takes some good astro shots as well, though your ISO is getting up there.

BUT... when the seasons change and I am shooting more low light, indoor stuff (candids, parties, etc), the 24L will be the go-to lens. The 1.4 is irreplaceable for that duty, along with creating a super unique shallow DOF look.

In the end, it would be tough to part with either lens, but if I had to let one go, the 24L would be up for sale. The zoom is just so useful in those focal lengths, and I don't shoot as much wide angle to really justify keeping the prime.


Canon/Nikon/Fuji

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,801 posts
Gallery: 81 photos
Likes: 836
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Sep 13, 2014 14:56 as a reply to  @ MatthewK's post |  #13

I would never buy a lens based on the quality of images posted on the web. Those images could just as easily me made with a 17-40. If you didn't need an UWA zoom before, why would you suddenly need one now? Just because it is a bit sharper and has IS? Meh. The 16-35 f4 is nice, but not so nice as to make you suddenly want to shoot UWA.

Sounds to me like you should get the 24L II.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, 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
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,086 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Sep 13, 2014 20:52 |  #14

Was at a birthday tonight. Indoor poorly lit jump type place. Tried the 24-105 for a couple of shots.... then pulled out the 35/85.

NO supplement for 1.4. Period.

ISO 6400 vs 25,600?... ya big diff. oh and I need to upgrade from the 430 to the 580 lol.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Sep 13, 2014 20:59 |  #15

24mm II is not very wide at all... Why do you even need an ultra wide zoom if you would be happy with 24mm? I would think you would instead be looking at the 24-70mm II 2.8.
I think you should be comparing the 16-35mm f4 to the 14mm prime.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

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

12,933 views & 0 likes for this thread
16-35 f4 L vs 24L 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 Charlieb84
2215 guests, 363 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.