canon 16-35 f4 IS vs 16-35 f2.8
  • User avatar
    Eden
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 1431
    Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:26 pm
    Location: Adelaide
    Contact:

    canon 16-35 f4 IS vs 16-35 f2.8

    by Eden » Sat Aug 16, 2014 2:04 pm

    I have been trying to get a heads up as to the difference between the two lenses in practical terms.

    I will be looking at getting the 6d in about 8 months ( 6 if I bust my buns ) and am looking for any views or experience that can help me decide between the two.

    The IS on the f4 gives a 4 stop reduction and my thinking (???) interprets that as better low light performance than the F 2.8 say for a live indoor music performance without flash.

    From what I have been reading the f4 is far better for clarity all round the frame with less vignetting also.

    any thoughts would be appreciated.

    cheers Eden
    I want to stand as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all the kinds of things you can't see from the center.
    Kurt Vonnegut

    PPOK
  • User avatar
    Plays with Light
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1354
    Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:34 pm
    Location: Lost In Thought
    Contact:

    Re: canon 16-35 f4 IS vs 16-35 f2.8

    by Plays with Light » Sat Aug 16, 2014 3:02 pm

    I can't comment from a practical point of view, having not owned either. My intention is to get a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and a Tokina 16-28 f/2.8, rather than the 16-35 f/4 IS as the 24-105mm has really good imagery from 28-36mm, well, good enough for me to print at A3+ sizes anyway. I'll need adapters for both the Samyang and Tokina lenses to be able to use filters though as they have protruding bulb type lenses. I loved my Tokina 11-16mm on the APSC bodies and the imagery I have from it on the 60D are quite detailed and beautiful, but with a touch of moustaching which could be rectified with Adobes lens profiling, that you do yourself.

    Vignetting, oooooohhh, I love a bit of vignetting! :shock:

    It really depends on what you want it for I suppose...

    Here's some links to Photozone for some good, critical reviews of some lenses around this ultra-wide end. You've probably already been there though! Sorry that I can't help any more.

    Canon 17-40mm f/4

    Canon 16-35mm f/2.8

    Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS

    Samyang 14mm f/2.8

    Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8
    Feedback and honest, constructive criticism is greatly appreciated.
  • beeb
    Golden Cow
    Golden Cow
    Posts: 1815
    Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:44 pm
    Contact:

    Re: canon 16-35 f4 IS vs 16-35 f2.8

    by beeb » Sat Aug 16, 2014 4:29 pm

    I'd put my money into the 16-35mm f/4 IS L. I've owned a 16-35mm L II in the past, and currently have a 17-40mm L (*but have not yet had a real-world play with the new 16-35mm f/4 IS L).

    Whilst the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is quite good optically, the f/4 seems to beat it in all areas. Sharper, and with less diffraction/chroma/distortion in the corners etc...

    I quite like the reviews on this site, and these 100% crop comparisons are good for pixel-peeping comparisons (but not so much for checking real-world things like flare characteristics or bokeh quality, though there is even some samples covering those too!):
    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... &APIComp=0

    I would argue that IS really only extends the time you can "hand-hold" a shot, so while the IS will help prevent camera shake, it isn't going to prevent motion-blur of your subjects if you're shooting portraits/people-pictures in low light or indoors. In those cases, the f/2.8 may be the (technically) better option as more light getting in will mean a shorter shutter speed for the same amount of light, which in turn would mean less motion-blur of any people in frame. In really low light it does require a very steady hand though, and you're likely to still be cranking the ISO well up. I'd hazard a guess that shooting low-light, handheld, no-flash indoors portraits is likely to be a very small component of what you want the lens for anyway? And if you really wanted to push down that road, a fast-prime with a f/2 or wider max aperture would likely be a lot more practical for that type of low-light/indoors shooting if that's going to be a primary use for the camera/lens combination.

    In my opinion, the f/4 IS L version will be a lot better for pretty much every other scenario anyway, and that with the change to the 6D, winding up the ISO another 'stop' may not be the end of the world for the odd occasion you have to push the limits of the combination in low light anyhow.

    One often overlooked feature of these types of lenses, the f/4 IS L version has a 77mm filter thread - which is shared with many of the other Canon 'L' zooms. The 16-35mm f/2.8 L II and 24-70 f/2.8 L II being the odd ones out that require 82mm filters (which are often significantly more expensive, or require an extra adaptor ring to be carried for plate-type filter holders). This means if you're pairing up with something like the 24-105mm IS L, you can swap filters between lenses to save a few dollars (though no time!). The 24-105mm gets a vote from me too. I don't believe the 24-70's are all they're cracked up to be, and the focal range of the 24-105 makes it a really handy alrounder. After buying selling and trying a whole bunch of lenses in the 16-85mm range - in my opinion if you really want/need a faster aperture than f/4 in a sub-135mm focal length: Jump over to a fast prime - as f/2.8 isn't that "fast" an aperture in the wider focal lengths that you're going to get lightning fast shutter speeds or amazing subject seperation/bokeh anyway. Just my 2c anyway...

    At the end of the day, unless you're predominantly shooting indoors in low light - The 16-35mm f/4 IS L is likely to be a much better alrounder, and best of all will save you about $500 off the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II.


    EDIT:
    One thing I do like with the Canon lenses is the waterproofing is extremely good. I used my 16-35mm f/2.8 to do a long exposure (or several, lol...) in the rain where the water was actually beginning to run down over the lens and camera and I never had the slightest hint of a problem from either camera or lens.
  • User avatar
    Doug
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1831
    Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 8:49 pm
    Location: Adelaide
    Contact:

    Re: canon 16-35 f4 IS vs 16-35 f2.8

    by Doug » Sat Aug 16, 2014 6:21 pm

    +1 for the 16-35 f4 IS, Canon's best ultra wide zoom by a good margin.

    The 6D is known for top notch ISO performance, which makes me think one stop of extra ISO will substitute one stop of aperture between not having the f2.8.
    Also the 6D's centre point is going to be ideal in low light.

    The IS is only going to come into its own for stationary subjects since ultra wides can be hand held at slow speeds anyway.
  • User avatar
    Busiboy
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 3572
    Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:10 pm
    Location: SE Sydney
    Contact:

    Re: canon 16-35 f4 IS vs 16-35 f2.8

    by Busiboy » Sat Aug 16, 2014 7:11 pm

    Just remember IS doesn't help with moving targets, at the long end you need 1/35 on the wide 1/16 the is would only be a my good on still life, tree movement would be picked up and you'd get blurred details.

    With the 16-35 f2.8 you need to generally stop it down past f4 to get a decent result anyway.
    *PPOK*
    C&C always welcome

    Scott
  • User avatar
    Eden
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 1431
    Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:26 pm
    Location: Adelaide
    Contact:

    Re: canon 16-35 f4 IS vs 16-35 f2.8

    by Eden » Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:20 pm

    Thanks "ALL"

    The f4 is now my choice as I have gone back to the reviews with your comments in mind and the f4 suits my needs better.

    The filter size is something I had not honestly thought much about so cheers for that one.

    you all make good sense and the f4 is actually far superior in many ways and apart from moving backgrounds ( sometimes good, sometimes bad? ) and a few other points is still the go.

    And im better off $$$ wise!

    Thanks Eden
    I want to stand as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all the kinds of things you can't see from the center.
    Kurt Vonnegut

    PPOK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest