F4 or save for 2.8?

Hi all

I’m thinking about my next purchase to do landscape, night shots and a general purpose lens. If all I will do is mainly landscape and night shots in cities, would it be better to go for the 2.8 or will the F4 work?

I’m leaning towards the Canon 16-35mm F4 simce it’s over $1000 cheaper right now.

Any input appreciated. Thansk

I personally went with the f4. I had no need for shallow dept of field when taking wide angle shots. But I have a Rokonon 14mm f2.8 for astro work. Those two lenses together do everything a 16-35 f2.8 III would do for me and would still be $700.00 cheaper.

Unless you need an extra stop faster shutter speed, you would likely be better going with the f4 and get the IS. I believe that the f4 has three stops IS corrections (correct me if I'm wrong!) which would allow you to shoot at two stops lower ISO than the f2.8. That could make a big difference! Say you're at ISO 1600 and f2.8, with the f4 and IS you could get down to ISO 400.

F4 IS.

You ever shot landscape at F2.8?

Shooting the night sky at F2.8 sounds slightly appealing, but the lens has to perform very well at F2.8 to bother with coma performance, star shape, etc. Most do not perform well here. You stop down to improve performance.

Today's ISO and sensor performance allows you to easily shoot at F4 without a problem.

16-35 f4L IS

Very best,

I think you really need to sit and think what you really need from the lens. Landscape at 2.8 I'd say is pretty rare. However, if this is going to be more of an all-around lens that might be used for street or portraits, you might want to save for the 2.8 or look into used to offset the costs. Just my two cents.

Hi,

I have a kit lens already (18-55) but wanted something better for night and landscape. Thinking now the F4 will do.

Thanks

the 2x lense that has great review with night photography are:

Sigma 12-24mm f4 Art DG HSM Lens
Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 DG HSM Art Lens

Now you have the option between which one u get between F4 and F2.8

but both are not cheap but its a new lens for sure and can check out review on youtube.

gingygrant wrote in post #18634840
I think you really need to sit and think what you really need from the lens. Landscape at 2.8 I'd say is pretty rare. However, if this is going to be more of an all-around lens that might be used for street or portraits, you might want to save for the 2.8 or look into used to offset the costs. Just my two cents.

I quickly grabbed my camera and a lens this morning to take with me to work. I grabbed my 17-40 F4. I really wanted to take some street candids and I was pretty bummed lol.

If landscapes are your prime subject, you will gain little with f/2.8. Even night photography work better when shooting on a tripod and at smaller apertures.

Also sometime even if you buy a lens that is 2.8 do not mean that lens is sharpest at 2.8.

Majority lenses will have F4 as the sharpest level even the lens can go up to 2.8. i think there is a website that tells you that, i heard!

If you do your work at night and your doing paid work like wedding then ofcourse 2.8 is necessary. I usually now a days going with 1.4 sigma prime cause its so gooooood even there old 50m and 85m LOL

but if your doing it just for fun and your not taking picture with critical time and you have a min to take the photo just get F4 and take a long exposure photo with 1sec sec.

i was also in to aperture then i realized most of my photos are in day time so i am not even using that 2.8 that I invested so much money on.

Saved up to get 2x F4 type lens than just one 2.8 or 1.4

invest wisely

The 16-35 f/4 L IS is just that. The IS allows me to capture razor sharp images Hand Held at 1/15-1/10" in dark Basilica's in Europe. Love it.