16-35mm f28 II/III vs 35mm f1.4 II

Hello Folks,

I don't know if anyone has done this type of comparison before. I am about to have a family trip to Europe. As the title suggests, which one you guys think will be better for family travel? Thanks in advance.

first off I wouldn't own the 16-35L II. I owned that lens for many years but it's been rendered obsolete by the new canon WA zooms. secondly, 35L II is most likely the worst choice. if it weren't you wouldn't need to ask.

I owned the 16-35L F4 for a few years and now I own the 16-35L III. frankly the ONLY reason I own the III is for shooting milky way. IQ-wise it's the same as the f4 IS but costs twice as much, is larger, heavier and does not have IS.

so unless you absolutely need f2.8 I would get the f4 IS.

Cool. thanks for the reply. how about the picture quality comparison at F4 for both 16-35mm f2.8 and 16-35mm f4?

jay56567 wrote in post #18590752
Cool. thanks for the reply. how about the picture quality comparison at F4 for both 16-35mm f2.8 and 16-35mm f4?

I own the 2.8 III and the F4 IS. I was disappointed when I couldn't see a difference in the 2.8 III being better than the F4 IS. I've pixel peeped a ton and there is hardly any difference at all and I'm a pretty good pixel peeper.

So like Ed said... you buy it ONLY for the need of 2.8 that is it. The F4 is lighter, cheaper, smaller, has IS. The F4 is in no way form or fashion less on the IQ front than the 2.8... it just cannot do 2.8

I'm selling both of mine since I'm moving to Sony btw....

Without a doubt the F4 IS is much better for travel than the 2.8. I've used my F4 IS exclusively for travel. This was taken on the wife and I trip to NYC for our 10yr anniversary. I'm not a great photographer but super happy with this shot. Believe it or not this was hand holding the lens but it was resting on the handrail of the platform.

Photo from Talley's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (826103)

Cool. thanks for the tips.

Reviews almost universally agree that the 16-35mm f/4 is excellent and that the III 2.8 is even more excellent. This comparison suggests to me that the 2.8 wide open is slightly better than the f/4 stopped down.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2

But both are excellent, and the III doesn't have IS and costs more.

I was using the 16-35 2.8 II and recently dumped it for the 35m 1.4 II and I must say that the purchase was definitely worth it.

I've used the 16-35 for weddings and group shots and I found the images to be rather soft on the edges and the amount of distortion I had to deal with was not ideal. Even stopping down to F4, sometimes in group shots the people towards the outer edge tend to be blurry and stretched. Maybe it was the copy I had but it was not quite up to par for paid work.

The 35 on the other hand is very sharp even at 1.4!
The bokeh is beautiful and very little distortion imo.

In terms of performance the 35mm is definitely hands down the better lens.
It comes with the price however and if you need the extra wide angle then the 16-35 can give you that flexibility.

For just your everyday travel shots the 16-35 2.8 III should be ok but to get some special looking shots and for a work horse I'd definitely recommend the 35mm. I can use my feet for that extra angle.

To me it makes no sense to pick the 16-35 2.8 iii over the f/4 IS version for pure IQ. The iii makes sense only if you abolutely need f/2.8 AND do not need IS.
Most of the folks pick the 2.8 to have a one lens solution for nightscapes while in low light / architecture type of photos the 4 stops IS is way more valuable than f/2.8.

Having said that, the 16-35 f/4 IS is in no way a replacement for a fast 35mm 1.4 prime. The latter cannot even be replaced by 2.8 zooms...it's again not stricly related to IQ but rather to unique look that only ultra fast wide angle lenses can deliver. For documentary, I therefore agree that the 35 f/1.4 may be a compelling choice.

Since you are traveling to Europe, I guess you will have many opportunities to shoot architecture, so the 16-35 f/4 IS L would be lovely. You can couple it with a 35 1.4 for documentary and environmental portraits and complete the set with a longer lens, either a 85/135 prime or a 70-200 zoom.

The 16-35mm f/4 IS is a wonderful lens, no doubt. What the f/2.8 III adds is sharp photos at f/2.8. If you need to stop action or anticipate frequent shooting in low light, well, you know what to do.

For your trip, skip the prime and go with a zoom, the variable range will be invaluable.

Poppycock. It WILL be excellent.

16-35 F/4 IS all the way

the 35mm CANT DO 16mm when you really need to go wide

I purchased the 16-35mm f4 couple days ago and returned it next day. The picture was too soft to me, even in the center area. not sure if I got the bad copy or my eyes are just deeply poisoned by the prime IQ. I think I might just give 16-35mm f2.8III a try to see it the sharpness makes me happier.

you're not going to get 16mm with your feet. no way. and I shoot at 16mm probably 50% of the time with this lens.

something wrong with the lens or you. pick one.

jay56567 wrote in post #18597417
I purchased the 16-35mm f4 couple days ago and returned it next day. The picture was too soft to me, even in the center area. not sure if I got the bad copy or my eyes are just deeply poisoned by the prime IQ. I think I might just give 16-35mm f2.8III a try to see it the sharpness makes me happier.

I'd have considered AFMA first. I've owned all three and there shouldn't be that much difference between f/4 and f/2.8 III.