Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS or f/2.8L II?

I'd say f4 all the way. You will enjoy this lens handheld with the IS.

I am very much in the F4 L IS camp - but that is because I use one!

If the F2.8 V3 is better than that's great but the F4 is more than good enough for me and the aperture suits my needs as I rarely shoot more open than F5.6 with this lens. From what I read the performance increase is not much and the price difference is VERY significant.

My only question regarding the 16-35 F4 L IS is why Canon incorporated IS? I have yet to find a use for IS on any lens (except the 100-400 Mk2) and can't help feeling that this lens may have been a little smaller/lighter/cheape​r/better performing(?) without IS. Either way it is a cracking lens just as it is and, IMO, is one of the best "Bang for Buck" lenses available.

My guess is that they wanted the lens to appeal to a large portion of the photo taking population. Even in this thread you can see how IS sells and sells good, regardless of whether it's needed or not.

Canon probably expects to obtain more revenue from the f/4 version than from the f/2.8 III.

The f2.8 versions are expensive niche lenses... you either need the 2.8 or you don't. Some people absolutely need it and will pay the premium price for it... the rest of us are content with f4 and get the bonus of IS as well.
And really, with the ISO range of modern bodies that extra stop is quickly becoming irrelevant.

johnf3f wrote in post #18189103
I am very much in the F4 L IS camp - but that is because I use one!

If the F2.8 V3 is better than that's great but the F4 is more than good enough for me and the aperture suits my needs as I rarely shoot more open than F5.6 with this lens. From what I read the performance increase is not much and the price difference is VERY significant.

My only question regarding the 16-35 F4 L IS is why Canon incorporated IS? I have yet to find a use for IS on any lens (except the 100-400 Mk2) and can't help feeling that this lens may have been a little smaller/lighter/cheape​r/better performing(?) without IS. Either way it is a cracking lens just as it is and, IMO, is one of the best "Bang for Buck" lenses available.

Shooting handheld at 1/8 or1/10 of a second or possibly slower and getting razor sharp images where tripods are prohibited, that is exactly why I like having IS in a 16-35. One extra stop does not always help where more depth of field is desired.
Removing the IS in this lens would make it less desirable, not more. And the results from this lens back it up.

Nick5 wrote in post #18189139
Shooting handheld at 1/8 or1/10 of a second or possibly slower and getting razor sharp images where tripods are prohibited, that is exactly why I like having IS in a 16-35. One extra stop does not always help where more depth of field is desired.
Removing the IS in this lens would make it less desirable, not more. And the results from this lens back it up.

Very good point.
I was looking at 17-40 as was keeping it down for this reason alone (and of course it's other issue).
Finally $799 for cost of new for 16-35 f/4 made my decision easy

Wow are they that cheap now?
I bought mine just after release... it was not cheap. Selling the 17-40 helped out.

Yeah, I have my 16-35 f/4 for sale now, and have been alerted that they are selling for $800 new. Time to lower my price

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18189121
The f2.8 versions are expensive niche lenses... you either need the 2.8 or you don't. Some people absolutely need it and will pay the premium price for it... the rest of us are content with f4 and get the bonus of IS as well.
And really, with the ISO range of modern bodies that extra stop is quickly becoming irrelevant.

Excellent point re: the ISO. Especially the new canon cameras. 12800 is really really nice. That's a lot of ISO.

IS is awesome for static stuff.

But as I have developed I find myself looking for faster shutter speeds to freeze action, even if is something simple like family photograpy. So IS for me personally, is not as important as for some. Don't get me wrong I'll take it if it is there.

Edit: I am referring to the wider end of focal lengths 16-70 range. For 100 and up I personally would struggle without IS.

I only like motion blur if I am specifically looking for it as part of the image.

So for me personally, I prefer 2.8 zooms for the shutter speed and bokeh.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18189144
Wow are they that cheap now?
I bought mine just after release... it was not cheap. Selling the 17-40 helped out.

Yeah. Those are the rare deals though.
Else the current price is $960

rndman wrote in post #18189669
Yeah. Those are the rare deals though.
Else the current price is $960

Even at that price its a great bargain, its a peach of a lens. That, 35 F2 IS and the 70-200 F4L IS are best bang for buck lenses IMHO. Tack sharp and reasonably priced for normal folks like myself.

Now only if Canon release a new 50 similar to the 35 in terms of IQ and focusing speed.

dochollidayda wrote in post #18189785
Even at that price its a great bargain, its a peach of a lens. That, 35 F2 IS and the 70-200 F4L IS are best bang for buck lenses IMHO. Tack sharp and reasonably priced for normal folks like myself.

And me too. I totally agree.

+1 on the normal lenses. Canon's 50mm offerings sux. The only good option when it comes to normal lenses is the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Planar, but my experience with Zeiss and their manual focusing hasn't been the greatest: mostly due to the fact that the focus confirmation doesn't always match the actual plane of focus.

I agree, I have no need for F2.8 in the 16-35 focal range so F4 does me fine. With my 24-70 F2.8 L V2 I often use F2.8 for subject separation and like the results. With the short focal lengths subject separation is more difficult to achieve so the extra aperture only serves to get more light in my case.

As to the IS? Is it a bonus? I have only had my 16-35 F4 L IS for 20 months and I don't even know if the IS works! I have simply never turned it on - just haven't found a use for it even when shooting dark interiors.

I am certain there will be those who need the F2.8 version, and it looks like a very nice lens, but other than looking really pretty it doesn't entice me personally.

Alveric wrote in post #18189848
my experience with Zeiss and their manual focusing hasn't been the greatest: mostly due to the fact that the focus confirmation doesn't always match the actual plane of focus.

Unfortunately focus confirmation is triggered in a big interval around the actual plane of focus. Yes, this sucks, but it is not a Zeiss problem, it's just that Canon does not really want you to use third-party lenses.

Since you own a 5D2, I recommend installing the Magic Lantern replacement firmware and use their great LiveView focus assist feature (PIP with magnified focus point). I also use a Zakuto finder to magnify the LCD screen. Quite a hack, but several Zeiss primes are way better than their Canon counterparts.