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 Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
Thread started 20 Jun 2014 (Friday) 14:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

 
cafecanon
Member
55 posts
Likes: 43
Joined Jan 2014
     
Oct 28, 2014 08:27 |  #511

uppppp

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3939/15456526617_084b657746_b.jpg
[/URL]



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
w0m
Goldmember
1,109 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2011
     
Oct 28, 2014 09:02 |  #512

cafecanon wrote in post #17237350 (external link)
uppppp
QUOTED IMAGE


Stark Tower


[6D]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LisaBlue85
Senior Member
Avatar
484 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 149
Joined Aug 2012
Location: New Jersey
     
Oct 28, 2014 11:28 as a reply to  @ w0m's post |  #513

So for the past few weeks I've been researching the 16-35mm f 2.8 & thought for sure it would be my next lens... Now, not so much! Didn't realize this was the latest of Canon's UWAs & apparently according to reviews one of the best Ultra Wides, if not THE best UWs to date. All reviews point me to this lens... Do any of the current owners of this lens prefer this one over the 2.8,they formerly had?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2cruise
Goldmember
Avatar
4,183 posts
Gallery: 538 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 5105
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Virginia.....I'm also known as Whisle
     
Oct 28, 2014 11:39 as a reply to  @ LisaBlue85's post |  #514

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5609/15454667156_489f8fbb3a_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pxFd​7y  (external link) Watkins Glen (external link) by Whisle (external link)

5D Mark IV~70-300mm f4L IS~16-35 f4L IS ~Zeiss 21mm 2.8~Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar~ Sigma 24-105 Art~Rokinon 14mm 2.8~Lee filters
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
w0m
Goldmember
1,109 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2011
     
Oct 28, 2014 14:05 |  #515

LisaBlue85 wrote in post #17237653 (external link)
So for the past few weeks I've been researching the 16-35mm f 2.8 & thought for sure it would be my next lens... Now, not so much! Didn't realize this was the latest of Canon's UWAs & apparently according to reviews one of the best Ultra Wides, if not THE best UWs to date. All reviews point me to this lens... Do any of the current owners of this lens prefer this one over the 2.8,they formerly had?

I never considered the 2.8; I went with the 17-40 f/4 over it. When the 16-35 f/4 came out; I jumped all over it and it has turned into by far my most used lens since. If you need speed for UWA low light portraits (photojournalism with people or astrophotogaphy), you need the 2.8. Else; for static subjects or landscapes; the f/4 wins hands down due to sharpness and IS.


[6D]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2ndviolinman
Senior Member
345 posts
Likes: 4
Joined May 2011
     
Oct 28, 2014 15:08 |  #516

^^^Me too, exactly.


David
5Dc, 5Dii, Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, 40/2.8 Pancake, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.0L, 200/2.8L, converted 35mm TS, Sigma 50/2.8 Macro, 70/2.8 Macro, Zeiss ZE 21/2.8, Zeiss Contax 28/2.8, 50/1.7 & 85/2.8, Jena 135/3.5, Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 APO, Canon 28-135.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Justinsmnz
Goldmember
Avatar
1,022 posts
Likes: 1181
Joined Feb 2014
Location: NE Rhode Island
     
Oct 28, 2014 15:17 |  #517

w0m wrote in post #17237946 (external link)
I never considered the 2.8; I went with the 17-40 f/4 over it. When the 16-35 f/4 came out; I jumped all over it and it has turned into by far my most used lens since. If you need speed for UWA low light portraits (photojournalism with people or astrophotogaphy), you need the 2.8. Else; for static subjects or landscapes; the f/4 wins hands down due to sharpness and IS.

Honestly, the 2.8 isn't even as important for low light anymore if you're shooting with a modern body. Bumping from 800-1600 or even 1600-3200 isn't nearly as big of a decision anymore (due to improved IQ @ higher ISOs) which practically eliminates the need for the extra stop of light from the lens. I suppose one might want a slightly narrower DOF for artistic purposes, but very few folks would have a specific need for that in a UWA. I can't remember the last time I shot my 14/2.8L at 2.8. In fact, for my own uses, I rarely even shoot the 16-35 IS at 4.0 (my own uses rarely include using this lens indoors though.)

One note: Star shooting does certainly give an advantage to a 2.8 lens over a 4.0, but with options available like the Samyang 14, it would still be pretty difficult to argue that as a valid reason for the $400 difference between the IS and the 2.8II.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LisaBlue85
Senior Member
Avatar
484 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 149
Joined Aug 2012
Location: New Jersey
     
Oct 28, 2014 17:02 as a reply to  @ Justinsmnz's post |  #518

I have both the 14 & 24 that I use for Astro, this would be strictly used for landscapes With all the reviews on the Internet & the phenomenal pics in this thread, I think I've made my decision! Added bonus of the Canon rebate & my B&H rewards making this a sweet deal too! Thanks all!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LisaBlue85
Senior Member
Avatar
484 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 149
Joined Aug 2012
Location: New Jersey
     
Oct 28, 2014 17:09 |  #519

Justinsmnz wrote in post #17238063 (external link)
Honestly, the 2.8 isn't even as important for low light anymore if you're shooting with a modern body. Bumping from 800-1600 or even 1600-3200 isn't nearly as big of a decision anymore (due to improved IQ @ higher ISOs) which practically eliminates the need for the extra stop of light from the lens. I suppose one might want a slightly narrower DOF for artistic purposes, but very few folks would have a specific need for that in a UWA. I can't remember the last time I shot my 14/2.8L at 2.8. In fact, for my own uses, I rarely even shoot the 16-35 IS at 4.0 (my own uses rarely include using this lens indoors though.)

One note: Star shooting does certainly give an advantage to a 2.8 lens over a 4.0, but with options available like the Samyang 14, it would still be pretty difficult to argue that as a valid reason for the $400 difference between the IS and the 2.8II.

One of the reviews I read compared the 2 lens for night photography, the f4 actually was the better lens... Go figure!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LisaBlue85
Senior Member
Avatar
484 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 149
Joined Aug 2012
Location: New Jersey
     
Oct 28, 2014 17:10 |  #520

cafecanon wrote in post #17237350 (external link)
uppppp
QUOTED IMAGE
[/URL]

This is beautiful!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Justinsmnz
Goldmember
Avatar
1,022 posts
Likes: 1181
Joined Feb 2014
Location: NE Rhode Island
     
Oct 28, 2014 17:15 |  #521

LisaBlue85 wrote in post #17238309 (external link)
One of the reviews I read compared the 2 lens for night photography, the f4 actually was the better lens... Go figure!

Oh really? That's actually pretty interesting. I'd have imagined that one would typically prefer a slightly blurry star (i.e. corner of the 2.8II) instead of a star that simply doesn't show up (i.e. @4.0) However, I'm not a regular star photographer, so my opinion probably isn't very valid, haha.


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LisaBlue85
Senior Member
Avatar
484 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 149
Joined Aug 2012
Location: New Jersey
     
Oct 28, 2014 17:18 |  #522

Justinsmnz wrote in post #17238322 (external link)
Oh really? That's actually pretty interesting. I'd have imagined that one would typically prefer a slightly blurry star (i.e. corner of the 2.8II) instead of a star that simply doesn't show up (i.e. @4.0) However, I'm not a regular star photographer, so my opinion probably isn't very valid, haha.

Shocked the hell out of me too!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dankin
Senior Member
476 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1327
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, Tn
     
Oct 29, 2014 12:31 |  #523

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5601/15474211637_aa2abf8d2c_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pzpo​1n  (external link) FCF Milkyway-1 (external link) by dkinner (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7581/15661049792_7cd12780b8_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pRUY​tS  (external link) Fall Morning-1 (external link) by dkinner (external link), on Flickr

Canon 6d, 16-35 F4 IS, 40mm Pancake, 70-200 F4 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LisaBlue85
Senior Member
Avatar
484 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 149
Joined Aug 2012
Location: New Jersey
     
Oct 29, 2014 13:16 |  #524

Both stunning, and really amazed by the Astro shot! Was just discussing that a few posts up, where a review had the f4 on top with better IQ than the f2.8.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2cruise
Goldmember
Avatar
4,183 posts
Gallery: 538 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 5105
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Virginia.....I'm also known as Whisle
     
Oct 29, 2014 15:40 as a reply to  @ LisaBlue85's post |  #525

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7547/15473419009_bc1c5ae27b_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pzkj​on  (external link) Nubble Sunrise (external link) by Whisle (external link)

5D Mark IV~70-300mm f4L IS~16-35 f4L IS ~Zeiss 21mm 2.8~Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar~ Sigma 24-105 Art~Rokinon 14mm 2.8~Lee filters
My Flickr (external link)

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

962,074 views & 8,457 likes for this thread
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive 
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 DrBarun
941 guests, 340 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.