Loving the 16-35 f4L IS over the f2.8 Version II

Yeah, the additional tax charge on refurbs definitely diminishes the great deal it once was, but I'd rather buy refurb than used for the simple fact that you get a warranty to cover any defects. I've bought a number of refurbs, and they've been outstanding. I miss the same amount of shots with them that I do with my new purchase lenses

Nothing wrong with it at all, Jim. It is certainly more than capable of making extraordinary photos, and it's super versatile to boot.

It is a superb lens that will continue to surprise you the more you do with it.

In my opinion the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS is a little gem in the Canon lineup. It gives some of their best IQ at a sensible price - I am VERY happy with mine. Just don't understand why they put IS on it?

As to the 16-35 F2.8 Mk2? I was a great lens right up until the introduced the F4 L IS - well unless F2.8 is REALLY important.

johnf3f wrote in post #18413687
It gives some of their best IQ at a sensible price - I am VERY happy with mine. Just don't understand why they put IS on it?

I find with the IS, I can shoot 1" handheld non-moving interior shots. I'm not complaining!

Two years ago I bought the 16-35 f/4 L IS for a trip to Rome. Since tripods are not allowed in the Basilica's, why not treat myself? Wow! Shooting 1/10", 1/15" Hand Held was possible with IS. Super sharp and crisp. And forget about not being hydrated properly.......
A few months later I bought the 24-70 f/4 L IS. Again for the IS. These two lenses paired with my 70-200 f/4 L IS have been my go to Greek Trliogy for Travel. My wonderful 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II has stayed home keeping an eye on the fort.
If I had to only take two lenses for travel the 16-35 f/4 L IS paired with the 70-200 f/4 L IS would be with me.
Now enjoy that wonderful 16-35 f/4 L IS.

johnf3f wrote in post #18413687
In my opinion the Canon 16-35 F4 L IS is a little gem in the Canon lineup. It gives some of their best IQ at a sensible price - I am VERY happy with mine. Just don't understand why they put IS on it?

Because: Video, for one.

But also, for a landscape photographer who has hiked to the top of a mountain (or climbed) and couldn't take a tripod (or only a very lightweight tripod), IS is still important.

And for me, shooting in some very dim indoor venues at high ISO wide open and my shutter speeds are still down in the 1/2 and 1/4 range, IS makes a great deal of difference even at wide angle.

Well said. IS really does help. I do interior shots for work with it and it is great to have to shoot super low shutter speed and not have to worry about blur.

I do use my 16-35 F4 L IS for interiors (very old Churches etc) and haven't found a need to turn IS on yet. Don't find a need for it with my 800mm so 16-35?

RDKirk - IS may be great for video, I will take your word for it. I simply have never used any of my current gear to shoot a single second of video so I have no idea!

Coincidentally I was bouncing some ideas off a Canon Rep last Thursday and he totally agreed with my opinion that IS (older systems) does slow AF acquisition and can impair tracking - perhaps this is the reason for Mode 3 IS?

Naturally, back when I had my 350D or 20D, IS was a godsend! These days I just can't really find a use or it often enough to justify the extra size, complexity and cost. If others find it useful then great - use it. For me IS has just cost me too many shots so I don't want it on long lenses and have yet to find a use for it on short lenses.

Just me