16-35 f4 vs 2.8 ii - dog photography

Looking to buy a 16-35mm for dog photography. I currently have a 50mm 1.4 and 70-200mm 2.8. Trying to decide between the 16-35 f4 and 16-35 2.8 ii. I'm leaning towards the cheaper f4. Any suggestions? Cheers

Everything I've seen seems to indicate the f4 is significantly sharper. It's also the newer of the two. It's cheaper. However, you do lose a couple stops of light. I'm recently made the decision to get the f4 as my next lens.

Do you shoot the dogs in bright light outdoors or in a dimly lit basement?

I shoot pretty much all outdoors. So ya, I think I'll order the f4. Thanks

I think you're going in the right direction. I do a lot of dog photography and I rarely used either the 2.8 or the 4 wide open. If you want to completely isolate the pooch from the background you can get some very shallow DOF with your 70-200. Good luck with the purchase and happy shooting.

I bought the 16-35 f/4 L IS last summer as an upgrade to the 17-40 f/4 L, which I am also keeping as a backup.
Like others have said, the corner sharpness is that. Having the IS will allow you to shoot hand held at slower Shutter Speeds. This will certainly add to its versatility.
Enjoy the new toy!

1 stop.

I've bought and returned 1 refurbished and 1 used Canon 16-35mm f/2.8. Neither was even close to the image quality I get with my f/4. If you must have, I'd recommend the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 with much better IQ, but it's bulky and heavy. That said, I agree with others here, the f/4 looks to be all you will need. Great lens, congrats on the choice.

This is swimming against the tide... I really don't like using WA lenses for dog or people photography because of the distortion caused by shooting close. I prefer a normal to tele lens...

While the 16-35 f/4 seems to be, by all regards, a stupidly good lens, I would be afraid of the same thing that RPCrowe mentions. I would consider a longer lens (135, 70-200, etc) and standing farther away to avoid distortion from being as close as you'd have to be for a WA framing.

I find myself using focal lengths over 50mm for most of my pet photography but I don't think you could go wrong with the newer 16-35 f4.

RPCrowe wrote in post #18011243
This is swimming against the tide... I really don't like using WA lenses for dog or people photography because of the distortion caused by shooting close. I prefer a normal to tele lens...

This would my view as well, even though I own the 16-35 f/4 IS. I use it for landscapes. I also have a the much maligned 24-105 f/4 and it works for me. Lightroom corrects the lens issues with one click. I prefer the range for people and pets. My 100-400ii gets more use because birds are usually my main focus (pun intended).

I did a lot of dog photography years ago. The one shot they all wanted was the classic wide angle of dog looking in to lens for that distorted look made popular by ad companies.

It was the one they typically framed...