16-35L II vs 16-35L f/4 IS?

I was wondering with everyone's experience with these two lenses if the 16-35L f/4 IS is a better performer as far as sharpness than the 16-35L II lens? I love my 16-35L II, but the corners seem really soft to me. I also noticed Canon recommended the 16-35 IS f/4 lens with the 5DSR instead of the 16-35L II

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17649237
I was wondering with everyone's experience with these two lenses if the 16-35L f/4 IS is a better performer as far as sharpness than the 16-35L II lens? I love my 16-35L II, but the corners seem really soft to me. I also noticed Canon recommended the 16-35 IS f/4 lens with the 5DSR instead of the 16-35L II

Heya,

The F2.8 16-35's are just not that great, for what they cost. That F2.8 is what lures people, but F2.8 on an ultrawide is really not that useful or practical, unless you're striving to gobble as much light as you can (such as wide field astro), but when you combine it with a kind of soft F2.8, it makes that point kind of moot.

Then they drop the 16-35 F4L IS which is superior in every way, with IS. Better corners, sharp every where, just all around great lens. And it's surprisingly affordable since the F2.8's seem to cost more still?

Everyone I know, and people I've watched here, all seem to have traded out their 16-35 F2.8's for the F4L IS in a heart beat when they were able.

I'm actually surprised there's not a ton of 16-35 f2.8's cluttering every sale forum out there, the way the 17-40's are.

Very best,

Yep, I bought the 16-35 f4 because all reviews did indicate that it was newer and much better at corner sharpness and CA. The only reason to consider the 2.8 is if you really need that aperture. I bought the 16-35 for landscapes, so not missing the 2.8 aperture. Unless you're needing faster shutter speed for the subject, I'm finding I can get pretty low with the IS at f4 with dim light. I also like that it has a non-moving 77mm thread: can use the same filters as my 70-200mm 2.8.

Gotcha! Well mine mine be for sale next! I sold all of my 77mm filters and went to the 82mm for the 24-70 and 16-35. Guess I'll just get another adapter ring

Owning a 5dsr really begins to change the way you think about your lenses - I have been going through it for a month now. Every time you pick up the camera you start thinking to yourself if the lens on the camera is sharp enough, goes it have IS , is F5.6 the sharpest or is F8 that much sharper - how about F11?

I can tell you I never use to think this way buy the 5DSR has caused me to do a lot of tests which I have posted up some results of and secondly, I have gone to a few different websites and looked at each of my lens by focal length and aperture to see exactly where I would ha e to go and where I should avoid.

With all of the above said, go to slrgear.com and look at the 2.8 and see where it gets to tack sharp and then try it there and see if you are happy with it.

For me, the biggest issue that I have decided is most important by far when shooting with the 5DSR is stabilizing the camera if possible but shooting with an IS lens whenever possible if you are going for sharpness - thus the 16-35 F4 IS has that over the 2.8 - but likely at F5.6 on a tripod there would be no difference.

The perfect kit for handheld 5DSR is

16-35 F4 IS
35F2 IS
24-70 F4 IS
70-200 F2.8 II IS
200 F2 IS
100-400II IS

The lenses that are missing in the Canon lineup are the longer focal length IS Primes - if I had to pick one it would be an 85 1.4 IS - and that is the type of lens that was just launched by Sony - the Batis 85 1.8 IS.

Nah, go ahead and get 77mm filters cause your next lens should be the 70-200 16-35L f4, 24-70mm 2.8, and 70-200mm 2.8 are the holy trinity Before I got the 16-35, I was thinking "why doesn't Canon have something like 14-24 the way Nikon does"....but I actually think the 16-35mm IS is a great compliment to the 24-70L 2.8: for indoor shots that have people, I might keep the 16-35 on, or switch if I need the 2.8.

Yep, truthfully I've been thinking of switching to Nikon for the DR since I mostly do landscapes here in Hawaii and sell them, but the 5DSR would sure be nice to have for large prints despite it's lack of DR. If Istay with Canon, I'd like to also get the 70-200 and the 11-24 would be a bad ass for me if I could polarize it. If the sun is up here in Hawaii, you need a polarizer

Looks like you've got plenty of opportunity with landscapes IMO, the difference in DR between Nikon vs Canon is trivial: especially with landscapes. Yeah, you can pull up shadows more with a Nikon. If you've got a challenging exposure range with a landscape, though, you're better off bracketing anyway (I bracket when I'm getting clipping on both my left and right in the histogram, and would have to do the same with any brand). Real world examples I've seen of the Nikon/Sony DR seem to be more impressive for recovering under-exposure in interior shots (and makes sense since it's more about cleaner blacks). If you're going to want the best quality at large poster size prints, then 5DSr with tripod seems like a great setup. For prints under 11-14", 6D or 5D3 is still great too.

I've processed lots of images for friends of mine that were the Nikon/Sony sensor and there is a HUGE difference.......over 2 stops difference which is quite a bit. Honestly, I've printed over 60" from my 6D and it looks fantastic. Just certain ways to upscale in PS to do so. I'm a Canon fan though and to me, it's so easy to use, the layout makes sense and I'm in total control of my camera. I know also the second I switch to the dark side, Canon will finally make the camera body to gain the edge in DR once again, and it's been rumored the the new 1 series body has an incredible amount of DR, but at 24 MP and a massive price tag I'm sure

Well "2 stops" better DR depends on what you're pushing: if you're pushing shadows, then yes, the Nikons are clearly better. Highlight recovery doesn't have anymore leeway from what I've seen. FWIW, though, I'm still not seeing reason to switch camps. I don't understand some folks that will switch camps based on any whim (the way technology keeps changing, you'd have to constantly be switching camps). I'm an animator/illustrator at work, and have a co-worker who's our photographer. He was a Canon user before starting work (and felt the need to switch to Nikon because the rest of the company is Nikon). He was impressed with the shadow recovery he got when still getting used to the flash system. But he says that if he could just stick with one system, he'd still be Canon: he still prefers the AF, ergonomics, and lenses..even though his D810 does have better DR and MPs then his previous 5D3. I'm looking forward to seeing what the August announcements will be for Canon. There's rumors that if it's the 1DX mkII, it might utilize the foveon type sensor patents Canon has...we'll see. Not holding my breath either way.

Yep, I do enjoy Canon and you just can't argue with their lens lineup. Go to any major sporting event, everyone shoots Canon, Nat Geo....Canon. Really my only reason to switch would be the DR. With Nikon essentially all you need to do is expose for the highlights, boost the shadows and you're done. I've helped a friend of mine process a waterfall shot that he underexposed by almost 3 stops and it was still clean! That sensor is sure impressive in my opinion. That being said, I'll probably stick with Canon since the wife isn't too hot on me switching systems at this time either Doesn't mean I won't get a 5DSR come tax return time!

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17649397
That being said, I'll probably stick with Canon since the wife isn't too hot on me switching systems at this time either

LOL: yeah, trying to rationalize GAS with the significant other or non-photog friends helps too As a brand, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, and Canon all seem like good photography brands. Nikon/Sony do currently have better sensors than Canon, but historically, Canon and Nikon are always going back and forth with different strengths. One of the great things with digital imaging is that there's constant improvements and competition for value and IQ...with more consumer cameras just being smartphone cams, DLSRs and mirror-less just stay niche. Think the next few years will be interesting for every brand.

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17649397
Yep, I do enjoy Canon and you just can't argue with their lens lineup. Go to any major sporting event, everyone shoots Canon, Nat Geo....Canon. Really my only reason to switch would be the DR. With Nikon essentially all you need to do is expose for the highlights, boost the shadows and you're done. I've helped a friend of mine process a waterfall shot that he underexposed by almost 3 stops and it was still clean! That sensor is sure impressive in my opinion. That being said, I'll probably stick with Canon since the wife isn't too hot on me switching systems at this time either Doesn't mean I won't get a 5DSR come tax return time!

You can use Canon glass easily with Sony. Same Sensor, well, it's theirs anyways, Nikon just bought into it.

Just a thought.

I'm eventually tempted to pick up a Sony to use with all my Canon glass too. Get all the perks of the sensor tech (DR) and use the nice Canon glass. They're not too costly either. And they will likely drop a higher resolution option too since they did it first anyways this go-around.

Very best,

I agree, Canon and Nikon are losing money due to the smartphone boom and it'll be interesting to see where the market goes. There will still be a need for high quality images though that smartphones just cannot currently produce. I just hope everything gets smaller, cheaper , and lighter and performs even better

Yep, thought about that too, but have heard many horror stories about the adapters and lack of AF. Also the lack of weather sealing can be an issue and they also don't give you a full uncompressed RAW file even though it's hardly an issue at all. The new one does look impressive though......42mp backlit sensor that I'm sure will smash Canon's DR. I just can't see myself shooting a wedding with it and count on it to perform under those conditions with an adapter