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

They say f2.8's are the way to go but that all depends on what you do. Being that I cater to both Photos and Video, The 16-35mm f2.8L II USM has barely gotten any use because it's lack of IS and being able to shoot at 1/5th with the f4L IS has given me much cleaner images than the f2.8 ever could unless I have time to setup a tripod. Now keep in mind, my experience may be a bit different because I also shoot video but I love the f4L IS so much I am selling the f2.8 and my 24-105 as well. My average range is around 16-35 so this lens fits perfectly for my wide angle needs for both Photos and Video. If it was f2.8 it would be a perfect lens but IS more than makes up for the stop difference.

This lens deserve more credit, It's sharper, Less distortion, cheaper and the Image Stabilization is insane!

Yep, the lens hardly came off my 6D during my entire Europe trip. Amazing lens.

DJHaze596 wrote in post #18412959
They say f2.8's are the way to go but that all depends on what you do. Being that I cater to both Photos and Video, The 16-35mm f2.8L II USM has barely gotten any use because it's lack of IS and being able to shoot at 1/5th with the f4L IS has given me much cleaner images than the f2.8 ever could unless I have time to setup a tripod. Now keep in mind, my experience may be a bit different because I also shoot video but I love the f4L IS so much I am selling the f2.8 and my 24-105 as well. My average range is around 16-35 so this lens fits perfectly for my wide angle needs for both Photos and Video. If it was f2.8 it would be a perfect lens but IS more than makes up for the stop difference.

This lens deserve more credit, It's sharper, Less distortion, cheaper and the Image Stabilization is insane!

I love the 16-35 f/4L IS. It's the lens I use at 24 rather than the 24-105 II (which I also use). I'm 50-50 in my use of the 16-35 vs 24-105 II. The IS of the 24-105 II is much better than it was in the v1. IQ isn't much different, but I think the colors and contrast are better with the v2.

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18412978
I love the 16-35 f/4L IS. It's the lens I use at 24 rather than the 24-105 II (which I also use). I'm 50-50 in my use of the 16-35 vs 24-105 II. The IS of the 24-105 II is much better than it was in the v1. IQ isn't much different, but I think the colors and contrast are better with the v2.

Debating the 24-105 II myself. might wait till the holidays for a good price.

I've tried two f/2.8 zooms: 24-70 & 70-200, and found both of them to be too big/heavy/expensive/sl​ow to make any sense. To my mind, zooms are for convenience. I much prefer my smaller/lighter/cheape​r/EVEN SLOWER zooms (24-105 & 70-200). If/when I need something faster, I've got primes. I haven't tried a 16-35 of any flavor because I'm satisfied with the 17-40L.

You will be even more satisfied with the 16-35 F/4 IS . The best wide angle lens I ever own.

I had the same epiphany with the 16-35 f/4 after I sold it and moved up to the f/2.8 III. After a weekend of walking around NYC with the heavier lens, I found that for the most part my shots were exactly the same as if I'd used the f/4. In a venue I was doing paid work, it was dark enough that 1 stop of light wasn't making all that much difference, and so I ended up using flash anyways, where the f/4 would have worked just fine (and has since).

So I went back to the f/4, and it's never leaving again. Great, great lens, one of the best bang for buck purchases you can make in the Canon ecosystem.

MatthewK wrote in post #18413175
So I went back to the f/4, and it's never leaving again. Great, great lens, one of the best bang for buck purchases you can make in the Canon ecosystem.

These kinds of statements are going to put me out another $900 real quick. You guys are killing me! Lots of impressive shots in the 16-35 f4 sample thread too.

My 16-35 f/4L IS is on its way to me. It has so much positive user review that I fell off the GAS wagon (again) and ordered one. I can't wait to get it. It should be very useful for some landscape shots, on my 6D.

This is the way Im going to go as well

Too bad the new 24-105 does not perform as well

Thanks for your review

Why $900, when you can get a nice refurb one for $791 at Canon.. 10% off refurbs all weekend

(Not sorry, and neither will you, after you start cranking out keepers with this baby)

Imagine if the 24-105II performed as well as the 16-35 f/4... but I firmly believe that if it were possible, Canon or someone would have already done it. 24-105 range must present design challenges that are too great to overcome.

MatthewK wrote in post #18413203
Why $900, when you can get a nice refurb one for $791 at Canon.. 10% off refurbs all weekend

I get charged tax from canon (not sure if that is everyone or state-specific). So $846. I just sort of guessed on the $900. Not saying it's not worth it; just been one a shopping frenzy lately. Still better than an import via ebay price though.

I usually trust refurbs from manufacturers, but still, every shot I took that was just "sort-of ok", I would be asking myself "was that me or the lens?"

I think this lens does get a lot of praise. I got mine in June and I love it.

im sure the 2.8 is great too but I'll take the size and weight savings over the stop.

What's wrong with the 24-105 II? The photos below were all taken on the same day in Bellingham, WA. The first two used the 16-35 f/4L IS. The last 3 were taken with the 24-105 II. I don't see any loss in quality by using the 24-105 II.

Using the 16-35: