Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Lens: I have been comparing reviews for this lens and the other lens that are similar (16-35mm f/2.8-versions and the 17-40mm versions). Does anyone have...

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

I have been comparing reviews for this lens and the other lens that are similar (16-35mm f/2.8-versions and the 17-40mm versions).

Does anyone have any opinions on these wide zooms? I am leaning towards the Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Lens cost wise and I don't really need the f/2.8. I would be using the lens on a 5D MK IV and a 1Dx.

Thanks.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

haroldross wrote:

I have been comparing reviews for this lens and the other lens that are similar (16-35mm f/2.8-versions and the 17-40mm versions).

Does anyone have any opinions on these wide zooms? I am leaning towards the Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Lens cost wise and I don't really need the f/2.8. I would be using the lens on a 5D MK IV and a 1Dx.

Thanks.

The 16-35/4 is definitely a really nice lens and it has better sharpness than either the 16-35/2.8 or the 17-40 (the 16-35/2.8 has better sharpness than the 17-40)! But the best one of the series is the 16-35/2.8III, it tops them all!

haroldross Loc: Walthill, Nebraska

The f/2.8 III is twice the price. I don't know if I can justify that offhand. How bad is the chromatic aberration on the f/2.8 III in the corners wide open? What about the vignetting wide open? At about what f-stop does it disappear?

Thanks.

Mr Bob

16-35 2.8 is great. I've used it for a couple years and love it. Best used on a FF camera.

Haydon

I own the 16-35 2.8L II, but, if I was to buy this focal length again it would be the 16-35 F4L. All the reviews speak positively about it. Notably, corner to corner sharpness which the 17-40 and 16-35 2.8L lack. The IS might aid you doing handheld shots under lower light conditions with the 16-35 F4L.

IMO the new 16-35 2.8L III is an overpriced dud with only a marginal amount of improvement from it's predecessor. All the reports speak loudly against the vignetting at wider apertures. If you don't absolutely need the 2.8 go with the F4.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Don't know if you've read this comparison, but you may find it useful: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/ultrawides-compared.htm

I have the 17-40L, which I find very satisfactory (especially for the price), but since I haven't shot the 16-35 f4, I can't compare directly. Dxomark shows the same sharpness and distortion for each, but the CA of the 16-35 is better (6 vs 10) and the viginetting is slightly better (1.5 vs 1.6). https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings

Rickyb

I use the Canon 2.8 super wide. Interiors such as churches are great because of f2.8. Most interiors are dark especially on a dark day. As a zoom you have great selections of use. It is heavy.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

haroldross wrote:

I have been comparing reviews for this lens and the other lens that are similar (16-35mm f/2.8-versions and the 17-40mm versions).

Does anyone have any opinions on these wide zooms? I am leaning towards the Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Lens cost wise and I don't really need the f/2.8. I would be using the lens on a 5D MK IV and a 1Dx.

Thanks.

If you never use it for astro photography (stars or milky way etc) then you probably don't need the f/2.8
I've heard that the 17-40mm lens is very sharp. I have the original 16-35mm lens and I'm happy with it but would like to have the Mark III. But it costs more than $2000 so I'm thinking NOT! Canon makes or made a 16-35mm, a mark II version and a mark III version. They still make the mark II and mark III but the original is obsolete and they don't make parts for it either. The original and the mark II are pretty much the same in performance and quality, but the mark III is, from what I've heard, way better than either the original or the mark II.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

I have the f4 lens and never use it under 5.6 so I did not spend the money. Have several friends with the 2.8 and they don't use wide open so I see no need unless you shoot at night.

RCnAZ

I bought the 16-35 F4L not long after it came out, and am really happy with it. This is after trying the 16-35 F2.8L II, and buying a used 17-40 F4L. I'm mostly looking for sharpness, and in the corners the 16-35 F4L is best of the three.
I sent the 17-40 in to Canon for adjustment after I bought it, with hardly any improvement.
The Image Stabilization on the 16-35 F4L is nice for handheld work, but I mostly use it on a tripod for landscape work, usually F8 or F11. But even wide open the lens is impressive. Wouldn't mind having the new 2.8, but not for the cost. I'll be happy with the 16-35 F4L for a while.
Using a 5D MkII body.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

haroldross wrote:

I have been comparing reviews for this lens and the other lens that are similar (16-35mm f/2.8-versions and the 17-40mm versions).

Does anyone have any opinions on these wide zooms? I am leaning towards the Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Lens cost wise and I don't really need the f/2.8. I would be using the lens on a 5D MK IV and a 1Dx.
Thanks.

I think you're right, but for the money, the 17-40 is a very nice lens as well.
SS

frank99

I used the 17-40 mm f/4 L lens for several years, and was always satisfied with its performance. When I learned of the 16-35 f/4 L IS lens, I tried it out and immediately bought it. It's simply a better performer, particularly on a full-frame body, and the IS thrown in is a deal-maker if you shoot handheld. There are only two reasons to consider the 16-35 f/2.8 L III, in my opinion: either you shoot a LOT of limited depth-of-field images and need the wider aperture, or you're one of those folks who believe large-aperture lenses must be better because they cost a lot more. Low-light situations are definitely not a reason to choose the f/2.8, because the IS in the f/4 lens gives you at least 2 stops of light-gathering advantage over the non-IS f/2.8.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

frank99 wrote:

I used the 17-40 mm f/4 L lens for several years, ... (show quote)

if you shoot stationary objects (landsacapes, etc), then the IS may be useful, but if you're shooting any sort of action (people moving), then you'll be shooting fast enough shutter speed that the IS won't buy you anything, and that's one of the situations where the 2.8 is worth the money. It all depends on your subject...

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

haroldross wrote:

I have been comparing reviews for this lens and the other lens that are similar (16-35mm f/2.8-versions and the 17-40mm versions).

Does anyone have any opinions on these wide zooms? I am leaning towards the Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Lens cost wise and I don't really need the f/2.8. I would be using the lens on a 5D MK IV and a 1Dx.

Thanks.

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-is.htm

frank99

You make a good point -- athletes and other fast-moving subjects do often call for wider apertures. If one's priority was sporting events, the 16-35 f/2.8 L could be a better choice than the 16-35 f/4 L IS. Whether it's worth the steep price, heavier weight and lack of IS is an answer only the OP can decide.