My world was so nice!

Until i read this review:

16-35mm f/4L IS review

I was almost always pretty happy with my 16-35Lii. I bought it because of the 2.8 aperture, making it able to shoot even at darker times. However there were many times where i didnt like the soft corners at 2.8 and at ISO's over 400.

I have actually pretty the same opinion as brian from DTP. IS is a great addition as im almost always shooting handheld and most of the time the light isnt that good.

Also that lens appears to be a damn sharp lens. Should i sell my 16-35 and get the 16-35 with IS?

Will i miss the stop of light from the f/4 aperture?

If you need the f/2.8 for events, I'd say keep what you have. Otherwise, the f/4 IS has a lot going for it, from the sharper corners, better flare control, better CA control, the IS.

Heya,

You shoot with a 6D and you worry about ISO 400?

I shoot ISO 800~1600 on a 650D, like yours, without hesitation. You should be able to shoot your 6D at ISO 3200 without even blinking an eye of hesitation.

It really comes down to what you need F2.8 for. If you need it for low light, you can make up for it with a single stop of ISO or shutter. The 6D does that very nicely. If you need it for depth of field, well, you can't mimic that with F4. Most shots that ultrawides are used for, generally are not done at F2.8 anyways. So unless your application is wide field astro, or you really need F2.8, then I see no reason to have the F2.8 on that lens. If you use it as an ultrawide walk around, for F2.8 and autofocus, that's one thing (and a niche use).

If you want a lens that will be crazy sharp, very controlled, just excellent to shoot at F8, F11, F16, etc, then the new 16-35 F4L IS is a great lens for that.

The 16-35 F2.8L has never made sense to me. Wide aperture is attractive, but it's not that great at F2.8, so it defeats the point of it.

Very best,

I dont shoot events. And i also dont shoot astro where 2.8 is needed.

I would like to do some astro but apparently i live in a country which doesnt has that much places where little light pollution exists...

However, not beeing able to open up to 2.8, especially for portraiture style wide-angle like shots is a bit a trade off. But i have the feeling that sharpness, IS and therefore the ability to handheld exposures of something like 1 second is a bigger value. I dont kow, might just be a guess and I might expect too much from IS, but at 16mm plus IS must be amazing to handhold...

The 6D will make up the stop you lose from f2.8 to f4 with good ISO control. However, the one thing you do lose that the 6D cannot compensate for during portraiture would be the 1 stop less DOF. That is really a question for you to subjective answer, whether you care about having a larger DOF at f4 vs f2.8 at 35mm or not.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17004862
The 6D will make up the stop you lose from f2.8 to f4 with good ISO control. However, the one thing you do lose that the 6D cannot compensate for during portraiture would be the 1 stop less DOF. That is really a question for you to subjective answer, whether you care about having a larger DOF at f4 vs f2.8 at 35mm or not.

I still believe that IS is giving me more than 1 stop back? Especially at 16mm where even lower shutter speeds should be possible. or am i totally wrong?

davidfarina wrote in post #17004920
I still believe that IS is giving me more than 1 stop back? Especially at 16mm where even lower shutter speeds should be possible. or am i totally wrong?

IS only stops your movement, it does nothing else for your image, it doesn't add light, it doesn't affect your DOF, etc.

At wider focal lengths like 16mm, your DOF is already very very large, the wider the lens the larger the DOF. I doubt you would know any differences at f2.8 vs f4 at 16mm. You typically wouldn't be shooting portraiture at 16mm though, thus why I brought up 35mm. You might see a difference between f2.8 35mm vs f4 35mm. For example, if you shoot something 10' out at f2.8 vs f4 at 35mm, your f4 image will have about 50% more DOF (4.4 vs 6.5).

davidfarina wrote in post #17004920
I still believe that IS is giving me more than 1 stop back? Especially at 16mm where even lower shutter speeds should be possible. or am i totally wrong?

The IS will reliably give you 2 extra stops of light gathering...3-4 stops can be achieved if you're mindful about stabilizing your body and hands. It goes a very long way when you want a deep DOF, as stopping the lens down even in moderate light can force your aperture beyond the ideal ISO 100 mark.

mystik610 wrote in post #17004939
The IS will reliably give you 2 extra stops of light gathering...3-4 stops can be achieved if you're mindful about stabilizing your body and hands. It goes a very long way when you want a deep DOF, as stopping the lens down even in moderate light can force your aperture beyond the ideal ISO 100 mark.

Perhaps it is a nomenclature thing, but I find this to be a bit confusing.

IS doesn't add any light, it does allow you to increase your exposure time by allowing for longer shutter speeds while hand-holding the camera, if you need that. For portraits, or really any dynamic scene, that actually won't help you any. For landscapes and skyscapes, then this could help, but you probably would be using a tripod with mirror lockup anyways?

Bottom line, you lose a stop of light with the 16-35 f4 IS, and lose a stop of DOF, but gain IS to help with longer shutter speeds along with better overall IQ.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17004955
Perhaps it is a nomenclature thing, but I find this to be a bit confusing.

IS doesn't add any light, it does allow you to increase your exposure time by allowing for longer shutter speeds while hand-holding the camera, if you need that. For portraits, or really any dynamic scene, that actually won't help you any. For landscapes and skyscapes, then this could help, but you probably would be using a tripod with mirror lockup anyways?

Bottom line, you lose a stop of light with the 16-35 f4 IS, and lose a stop of DOF, but gain IS to help with longer shutter speeds along with better overall IQ.

Youre right, but i would use it mainly for landscapes and similiar non-moving objects. But i almost never have a tripod with me. Its just too much bulk so this would be a nice addition..

davidfarina wrote in post #17004964
Youre right, but i would use it mainly for landscapes and similiar non-moving objects. But i almost never have a tripod with me. Its just too much bulk so this would be a nice addition..

In that case, then the f4 IS sounds like a winner. You are not going to care much about the DOF issue, as it is quite large at 16mm anyways, you are going to get crisper corners, and you get IS to help with body motion during longer shutter speeds. It sounds like you won't really miss f2.8.

davidfarina wrote in post #17004964
Youre right, but i would use it mainly for landscapes and similiar non-moving objects. But i almost never have a tripod with me. Its just too much bulk so this would be a nice addition..

Heya,

IS is pretty much only useful for long exposure shutter speeds when it comes to ultrawides, so your description of use, landscape, is a good place where it will work. Most handheld landscape that I see, generally is done at higher ISO to ensure no motion blur. Couple that with IS and you can manage really great shots. Don't fear some ISO usage! I would consider the IS as a means to reduce ISO that is necessary via allowing a stop or so more of shutter. This matters on the long side of shutter.

I don't have IS on my ultrawide, but I don't notice it at all, because I generally do my landscape & night shots with a tripod. I also generally don't mind shooting ISO1600 as a means to get my shutter closer to 1/40s where I'm comfortable shooting my 11-16mm at F8~f11 in low light.

IS otherwise is only helpful for me on my other lenses for stabilizing the viewfinder on longer lenses.

Very best,

Have you considered a good lightweight travel tripod? There are some very nice ones with very small footprints to your bag, with little weight. Or perhaps a carbon fiber monopod?

http://www.amazon.com …ords=carbon+fib​er+monopod

I am seriously considering this myself, but I need a good ballhead on it, and am still researching.

2.8 Vs IS ?? .... I would go with 2.8.
I would stop worrying about something which is not in my kit....happy shooting!