16-35mm Lens GAS attack coming on: I'm trying to decide between the f/2.8 without IS or the f/4 with IS for a Canon 16-35 L lens. I've been reading stuff on the Internet for two weeks...

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

I'm trying to decide between the f/2.8 without IS or the f/4 with IS for a Canon 16-35 L lens. I've been reading stuff on the Internet for two weeks and honestly can't decide. I'm leaning toward the f/4 with IS since my camera is a 6D and handles low light and high ISO pretty well. I'm likely to use it mostly for landscape/cityscape type stuff where the larger aperture should not be important. What about IQ and softening on the edges? Any on hands experiences? Thanks.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

I added the 6D about 18 months ago. I used a f/4 24-105 L for mid range.

I come from a 60D with 15-85 EFs, and 10-22 EFs for UWA.

I love UWA and wanted something sharp but budget was a concern. Canons newest affordable is the f/4 16-35 but it was still out of my range.

I tried some used stuff and finally ended up with Tokina f/2.8 16-28. Both Tamron and Tokina have some new entries. I would really like the f/4 11-24 but it is crazy pricy.

I really like my Tokina and don't feel compromised by my choice.

J. R.

BullMoose Loc: Southwest Michigan

I've had the 16-35 L 2.8, and can honestly say it has been my favorite lens of all time. Great for those landscape vistas.

I've always thought that a reason for a 2.8 vs. a 4 (even if you don't use the 2.8) is to get farther away from the extreme end and into the sweet spot of the lens. Does that make sense?

Basil Loc: New Mexico

If I was in your position, with that Camera, I'd probably go for the f4 version with IS. I've read more than one review suggesting that new 16-35 is one of the sharpest, if not the sharpest, UWA Canon has made to date. Since you indicate most of your subjects are still, the IS will help make up for the one stop smaller aperture. The difference in cost is a 600EX-RT Speedlight! If it was me, using my 7D M2 and I was going to get that range of zoom, it would be a no-brainer. Unless there is a compelling reason for needing that extra stop (without IS) vs the f4 version, my vote would be to save $500 and get the f4 (with IS). At least that's what I'd do.

MtnMan Loc: ID

waegwan wrote:

I'm trying to decide between the f/2.8 without IS or the f/4 with IS for a Canon 16-35 L lens. I've been reading stuff on the Internet for two weeks and honestly can't decide. I'm leaning toward the f/4 with IS since my camera is a 6D and handles low light and high ISO pretty well. I'm likely to use it mostly for landscape/cityscape type stuff where the larger aperture should not be important. What about IQ and softening on the edges? Any on hands experiences? Thanks.

The Nikon 16-35 is fabulous. I never shoot below f16 so would have no use for an f2.8. An f2.8 lens just adds to weight and cost. The f2.8 would go unused.

I have an f2.8 17-50 for my DX camera. Even in that range I've only used f2.8 a few times for indoor images. The reason is that the DX camera isn't as good at high ISO as my FX camera.

VR is helpful for situations where bringing a tripod isn't possible or practical. The downside is forgetting to turn it off when using a tripod...and the higher price for some Nikon options with it (e.g. 24-70). But my unplanned tests don't show a material difference when I forget and leave VR on.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I've got the f/2.8 and I like it a lot but my vote would be for the f/4. It's a darn good lens, has IS and will save you a considerable chunk of cash and unless you are shooting landscapes in near dark conditions, the f/4 will do exactly what you need it to do.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

rmorrison1116 wrote:

I've got the f/2.8 and I like it a lot but my vote would be for the f/4. It's a darn good lens, has IS and will save you a considerable chunk of cash and unless you are shooting landscapes in near dark conditions, the f/4 will do exactly what you need it to do.

That is probably the most honest thus best answer in this thread yet. Not the typical "I've got the 2.8 lens and I love it" reply.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

From Canons promotion this day.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-16-35mm-f4l-is-usm-refurbished

EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Refurbished 971.28 USD with Canon 1 year warranty.

This is Canons newest affordable UWA. This is I WOULD BUY!

J. R.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Gifted One wrote:

From Canons promotion this day.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-16-35mm-f4l-is-usm-refurbished

EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Refurbished 971.28 USD with Canon 1 year warranty.

This is Canons newest affordable UWA. This is I WOULD BUY!

J. R.

I Agee. Often times Canon refurbished equipment is better than new stuff off the line. I've purchased several items from their refurbished store (most recently two 600EX-RT Speedlites) and have been extremely pleased. PS: I think you got your fingers crossed - the price is $791.28, not $971.28. Even better!

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Thanks for covering for me. That's what I get in trying to do two things at once, breath and type. Just how good is the 791.28 price? The lowest used I have seen has been 800 USD.

J. R.

Basil wrote:

I Agee. Often times Canon refurbished equipment is better than new stuff off the line. I've purchased several items from their refurbished store (most recently two 600EX-RT Speedlites) and have been extremely pleased. PS: I think you got your fingers crossed - the price is $791.28, not $971.28. Even better!

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

waegwan wrote:

I'm trying to decide between the f/2.8 without IS or the f/4 with IS for a Canon 16-35 L lens. I've been reading stuff on the Internet for two weeks and honestly can't decide. I'm leaning toward the f/4 with IS since my camera is a 6D and handles low light and high ISO pretty well. I'm likely to use it mostly for landscape/cityscape type stuff where the larger aperture should not be important. What about IQ and softening on the edges? Any on hands experiences? Thanks.

I have the 6D and the 16-35 f/4 L. With the 6D's high ISO capability and the f/4's IS I have never found a good reason to miss the f/2.8. In dim lit situations, such as my tour of the interior of the USS Missouri, a flash came in handy but wasn't totally necessary. For landscapes, cityscapes, street, or most anything else in any kind of sunlight the f/4 does fine. As far as IQ, if I remember correctly, the f/4 rated slightly better then the f/2.8, especially in the corners. If most of your shooting is in reasonably good light I would recommend the f/4.

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Fingar, I think have a 430 flash? Did you experience ghosting? I think that this is still relevant to this posting.

J. R.

LFingar wrote:

I have the 6D and the 16-35 f/4 L. With the 6D's h... (show quote)

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Gifted One wrote:

Fingar, I think have a 430 flash? Did you experience ghosting? I think that this is still relevant to this posting.

J. R.

Here are some interior shots with my 6D, 16-35 f/4 L and 430EX II flash:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-270921-1.html
I don't see any problem, but then, I have walked around the house looking for my glasses only to have my wife tell me: You're wearing them! :-D

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

BullMoose wrote:

I've had the 16-35 L 2.8, and can honestly say it has been my favorite lens of all time. Great for those landscape vistas.

I've always thought that a reason for a 2.8 vs. a 4 (even if you don't use the 2.8) is to get farther away from the extreme end and into the sweet spot of the lens. Does that make sense?

That is a good point, thanks. :)

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

waegwan wrote:

I'm trying to decide between the f/2.8 without IS or the f/4 with IS for a Canon 16-35 L lens. I've been reading stuff on the Internet for two weeks and honestly can't decide. I'm leaning toward the f/4 with IS since my camera is a 6D and handles low light and high ISO pretty well. I'm likely to use it mostly for landscape/cityscape type stuff where the larger aperture should not be important. What about IQ and softening on the edges? Any on hands experiences? Thanks.

From experience I choose the f/2.8 version II. My camera's AF has far more cross-tracking points for 2.8 than for 4.0. The 2.8 is in focus while the 4.0 is possibly still looking. If having Image Stability is a must for you then the 4.0 is your lens. The 4.0 does use the 77mm filters which will save money over the 82mm required for the 2.8 versions. Advice: if you chose the f/2.8 be sure and get version II, the image results are superior. Whichever, the focal range is very versatile and you should benefit from either aperture you select. Good luck.