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 Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 11 Jul 2017 (Tuesday) 19:56
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35mm f2.8 or f4?

 
dhornick
Senior Member
Avatar
698 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 463
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Omaha, NE
     
Jul 11, 2017 19:56 |  #1

I need a 16-35mm and can't decide on either the Canon f2.8 without IS or the f4 with IS. What I really want is the f2.8 WITH IS, I just wished they made one.

Landscape photographer most of the time.

Thoughts?


Darrell
Moved from the world of Canon DSLR to Mirrorless - Sony A7 III | Sony 24-240mm f/3.5 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
xdboardsurfer
Member
Avatar
95 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 83
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Denver
     
Jul 11, 2017 20:03 |  #2

Landscape? Save a few bucks with the f4. Unless you're into Astro as well.


60D | 14 | 28 | 17-40L | 85 | 70-200L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dhornick
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
698 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 463
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Omaha, NE
     
Jul 11, 2017 20:41 as a reply to  @ xdboardsurfer's post |  #3

Well, astronomy is on the list for sure.


Darrell
Moved from the world of Canon DSLR to Mirrorless - Sony A7 III | Sony 24-240mm f/3.5 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,166 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1466
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Jul 11, 2017 23:35 |  #4

For landscapes and astro aren't you going to be shooting on a tripod for the vast majority of the time? If so IS is going to be off anyway.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lyndön
Goldmember
2,175 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 201
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Knoxville, TN
     
Jul 12, 2017 03:34 |  #5

If you want a wide angle with a fast aperture and image stabilization, how about the Tamron SP 15-30mm 2.8 VC?
At $1200, it's just a bit more than the f4 IS, but quite a bit cheaper than the 2.8 III.

I have no first hand experience with it, but DXOMark did a review and comparison with Canon's 16-35 2.8 III and f4 IS lenses and it seems like it's very competitive. https://www.dxomark.co​m …D-Canon-mount-lens-review (external link)


GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dhornick
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
698 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 463
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Omaha, NE
     
Jul 12, 2017 13:22 |  #6

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18399998 (external link)
For landscapes and astro aren't you going to be shooting on a tripod for the vast majority of the time? If so IS is going to be off anyway.

This was exactly my original thought Dan. However, I always have another immediate thought in that what if I end up "needing" a 2.8? It's not that I don't shoot portraits because I do. I just prefer Landscapes.


Darrell
Moved from the world of Canon DSLR to Mirrorless - Sony A7 III | Sony 24-240mm f/3.5 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Micro5797
Senior Member
Avatar
487 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 157
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Montana
     
Jul 12, 2017 13:42 |  #7

I am always using my Tamron 17-50 non IS and never get blurry images, just pay attention to your shutter speed.

I find that IS is really not that important on wider lenses. With even reasonably steady hands, shooting at 1/20s or 1/30s shouldn't be an issue on a 16-35. If you need faster shutter to avoid motion blur, IS still won't matter in that instance, but at least you have the one extra stop in aperture so that you can keep the shutter speed up.


_______________
Canon 70D | 70-200mm f2.8 MK1 | 85mm f1.8 | 50mm f1.8 | Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non vc| Nissin Di866 II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,533 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5569
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jul 12, 2017 13:49 |  #8

I have a similar scenario coming up, and it's hard as hell to justify.

I already have 14 + 24 for astro, and they perform very well for that task, but not very well for cityscapes that I enjoy.

14 and 16-35 f4 would be gone in favor of the 16-35 f2.8, but 24 would likely stay around since it's pretty darn good @ f2, even usable @ f1.4 really.

I guess if the price wasnt so darn steep, the decision would already be made.

tamron 15-30 doesnt do filters, out of contention.


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
Lyndön
Goldmember
2,175 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 201
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Knoxville, TN
     
Jul 12, 2017 21:23 |  #9

Charlie wrote in post #18400455 (external link)
tamron 15-30 doesnt do filters, out of contention.

It does, it just requires an adapter (made my Lee and several others). If that's the only thing holding you back.


GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,627 posts
Likes: 496
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Jul 12, 2017 21:53 |  #10

I got the 16-35mm f4 before the 2.8III came out. At the time, the reviews just made it an easy decision: the f4 had so much better IQ then the 2.8II. I was looking for it to be a general landscape lens, and I've only been happy with it. IMO, it's a great deal: optics are great as well as AF. I haven't really pushed IS since it's not as important in wide angle (though I have tried 1/4 hand held). For me, the 16-35 f4 is a fine accompaniment to my lens selection. Instead of going 2.8, my own personal preference would be to look at wider focal lengths.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
battletone
Senior Member
Avatar
503 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 71
Joined Sep 2009
     
Jul 16, 2017 23:30 |  #11

Isn't the sharpest of them the 2.8 v3? Then I would get that. I have the 2.8v2, and while specs and charts show the others are way better, its still really pleasing imo, and I have never once found myself in a situation where I wished I had a 4 stop IS on this thing.


Cameras: 5D Mark IV, EOS 3, Elan 7
Lenses:15mm 2.8 fisheye, 16-35mm 2.8L II, 24-70mm 2.8L II, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L, 70-200L II IS
Tripod: Gitzo GT2531, Arca-Swiss Z1, RRS PC-LR
Lights: Photogenic PL1250 x2, 1500SL x1, Canon 580ex, YN 568ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,987 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 2033
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Jul 17, 2017 01:18 |  #12

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18399998 (external link)
For landscapes and astro aren't you going to be shooting on a tripod for the vast majority of the time? If so IS is going to be off anyway.

dhornick wrote in post #18400426 (external link)
This was exactly my original thought Dan. However, I always have another immediate thought in that what if I end up "needing" a 2.8? It's not that I don't shoot portraits because I do. I just prefer Landscapes.

i think dan was suggesting the f2.8...saying you'll be on a tripod, so why the need for IS anyways?

you say you want both f2.8 and stabilization...you could look at the tamron as mentioned above...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikepj
Member
Avatar
204 posts
Likes: 63
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Central Michigan
     
Jul 17, 2017 07:39 |  #13

I bought the f4 for travel mostly, where I wanted to be able to capture indoor shots (architecture, cathedrals, etc) without a tripod. Since motion in the frame wouldn't be an issue, I decided that the f4 + IS would let me use a shorter shutter speed than the f2.8. So far I've been really happy with it. I have taken some portraits with it too. You have to be careful not to put anyone at the edge of the frame at such a wide angle, but I like the look of wide angle portraits if done right, because it captures the environment the person is in as well. I suppose the 2.8 might have potential to give those portraits a more pleasing background if that's something you're going to use it for.

For landscapes, you'll probably be on a tripod and at f8 anyway, so either lens will work. The f4 is lighter, so it would be easier to carry if you are hiking with it.

The 2.8 would be better for astro, but you could buy a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 along with the 16-35 f4 for less than the cost of the 16-35 2.8.


Radiant Photography (external link) Instagram (external link) Instagram (Sports) (external link) Flickr (external link)
5D Mark IV, 7D Mark II, Rebel SL1
16-35 ƒ4L, 24-105 ƒ4L, 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS II, 100-400 ƒ4.5-5.6L, 85 ƒ1.8, 50 ƒ1.8 STM, 24mm ƒ2.8 STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,063 posts
Gallery: 1508 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9787
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited over 1 year ago by MalVeauX.
     
Jul 17, 2017 07:55 |  #14

Heya,

Get the F4. It's sharp wide open.
The F2.8 is not sharp wide open.

The only difference in application for you is that you'll stop both of them down for landscape, and probably shoot wide open for astro, and the difference between F2.8 and F4 on an ultrawide when you have ISO 6400~12,800 and you're just doing milky way shots is not worth going to the softer F2.8 for. The F4L IS is the better lens overall. If you are struggling for light with astro, and its not your primary purpose, get a much, much faster and better suited sharp lens for astro (Rok 24mm F1.4) later. Otherwise, F4 and sharp wide open is better frankly with your 6D for milky way than the softer F2.8, saving a stop, but you can totally shoot at ISO 12,800 and be way under 30 seconds at 16~18mm without trails.

Very best,


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,410 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 252
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Jul 19, 2017 09:58 |  #15

IMO, you don't need f2.8 if you have 6D. At least, you don't need it badly and not for landscapes and astro. And if you will badly need f2.8, F4 and IS will do the same most of the time.

My daughter gave me 16-35 f2.8L, because she switched to 24-105 F4 IS L. I have it attached to 500D, since I don't have Canon FF bodies anymore. This lens immediately commanded the grip to be re-attached to have the rig balanced. After two workout sessions with it I gave up. Just keeping it on the shelf for now. If I'll need zoom, I'll get lighter, slower lens with IS.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

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

5,005 views & 17 likes for this thread
16-35mm f2.8 or f4?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
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
944 guests, 344 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.