The Canon 16-35 2.8L vs 4L
Oct 21, 2018 16:18:02 #
Is the image stabilization worth the diff and how often will I need the 2.8? this would be a new lens for me. I have a 24-105 f/4L and would like to work on some wide angle landscape shots.
Oct 21, 2018 16:36:27 #
For landscapes, my opinion is that neither IS or the extra stop in speed of the 2.8 will be of much added value for landscape shooting.
Oct 21, 2018 16:51:22 #
TriX wrote:
For landscapes, my opinion is that neither IS or the
extra stop in speed of the 2.8 will be of much added
value for landscape shooting.
For landscapes, my opinion is that neither IS or the
extra stop in speed of the 2.8 will be of much added
value for landscape shooting.
For landscapes you could put the savings into
a graphite tripod, better boots, a new 4x4 .....
OTOH the ultra wide ability may tempt you into
shooting interiors, possibly in public places that
disallow tripods, where IS is invaluable but fast
lens speed is not [needing decent DoF].
I use the old 17-40/4.0 without IS. If it weren't
for IBIS I would find much less use for this lens.
[I use it on a Sony body with IBIS].
`
Oct 21, 2018 16:55:05 #
The IS on the 16-35 f/4L is wonderful. Here's a a low-light example, shot 1/30 f/5.6 with the camera held over my head at 35mm and ISO-5000. Both example images have a URL link to their host page on Flickr where you can click a bit deeper into the details. I thought I was perfectly happy with the 17-40L I had shot for years, but the IS is well worth the difference.
St Louis Gateway Arch by Paul Sager, on Flickr
A high ISO example maybe is a bit too unusual where the camera and processing come into play in the final result. Here's one at ISO-100 where I was hand-holding at 1/20 a 25mm. Going down to 1/5 to 1/10 on the wide end is very doable. You'll quickly find this is your favorite "walkaround" lens, more so than the 24-105.
Old Plymouth
St Louis Gateway Arch by Paul Sager, on Flickr
A high ISO example maybe is a bit too unusual where the camera and processing come into play in the final result. Here's one at ISO-100 where I was hand-holding at 1/20 a 25mm. Going down to 1/5 to 1/10 on the wide end is very doable. You'll quickly find this is your favorite "walkaround" lens, more so than the 24-105.
Old Plymouth
Oct 21, 2018 17:05:15 #
As CHG_CANON (Paul) demonstrates so clearly, you are the best judge of what your current and future needs are not just in the sense of focal length but also in terms of inherent features.
Oct 21, 2018 18:19:02 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
I don't have the 16-35mm f.4L IS yet... but I plan to buy it along with my full frame upgrade.
From all I've seen...
It's virtually as sharp from corner to corner as the very best f/2.8 version (which is the III, which is a whole lot bigger, heavier and twice the price... but has the best image quality of any of the Canon 16-35s... the f/4 lens is a very close second place).
And IMO IS may not be as important on a 16-35mm as it is on a telephoto. But it can't hurt and is always nice to have, none-the-less. It's not available on the Canon f/2.8s. Only on the f/4 version.
I think you'll find it will run circles around your 24-105L. (Might want to look into the 24-70mm f/4L IS USM, too.)
From all I've seen...
It's virtually as sharp from corner to corner as the very best f/2.8 version (which is the III, which is a whole lot bigger, heavier and twice the price... but has the best image quality of any of the Canon 16-35s... the f/4 lens is a very close second place).
And IMO IS may not be as important on a 16-35mm as it is on a telephoto. But it can't hurt and is always nice to have, none-the-less. It's not available on the Canon f/2.8s. Only on the f/4 version.
I think you'll find it will run circles around your 24-105L. (Might want to look into the 24-70mm f/4L IS USM, too.)
Oct 21, 2018 18:44:32 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The IS on the 16-35 f/4L is wonderful. Here's a a ... (show quote)
Good points Paul, I may consider it. I also have the 17-40L and so far, I haven’t missed IS. I use it outdoors where there is plenty of light (so fast enough shutter speed) and when inside for interiors, I’m using a flash, but I may be missing something
Oct 22, 2018 02:29:39 #
I primarily use my 16-35 f/2.8 for night and night sky shooting. It's sitting on a tripod so no IS needed. For handheld, I usually go for a higher ISO along with higher shutter speed so, no IS needed. Your 24-105 is a much more versatile lens, on full frame body, even though it is f/4. On a Canon crop body, 16 is almost equivalent to 26 mm. Tonight I'm using it in an attempt to photograph some of the orionid meteor shower, if the clouds cooperate.
Oct 22, 2018 06:33:31 #
ktrudell wrote:
Is the image stabilization worth the diff and how often will I need the 2.8? this would be a new lens for me. I have a 24-105 f/4L and would like to work on some wide angle landscape shots.
Unless you are shooting in low light action the IS lens is by far more useful.
I do not have either lens but do have the 10-18 with IS.
It is great for indoor shots hand held etc.
Outdoors it works well as well.
Having shot also with and without IS I only get IS lenses anymore, That is why I chose the 24-105mm as well over the 24-70 (Besides the extra reach).
Oct 22, 2018 08:51:39 #
Tamron 15-30 f2.8 VC offers some answers but is a beast to hold. I am a really big guy so I don't notice so much. I take some interior shots in some old old country churches at dusk and dawn so having the 2.8 and the VC allows me to work without a tripod(some of the churches don't like that). Plus it was cheaper.
Oct 22, 2018 08:54:45 #
I purchased the f4 version for doing real estate interiors, to replace the 14mm I was using that had way too much distortion. Have been extremely happy with it, ACR does a great job in correcting any distortion. Am just starting to try using it for other subjects such as landscapes.
Oct 22, 2018 09:58:29 #
what camera are you using? crop/FF?
ktrudell wrote:
Is the image stabilization worth the diff and how often will I need the 2.8? this would be a new lens for me. I have a 24-105 f/4L and would like to work on some wide angle landscape shots.
Oct 22, 2018 10:22:41 #
TriX wrote:
For landscapes, my opinion is that neither IS or the extra stop in speed of the 2.8 will be of much added value for landscape shooting.
Oct 22, 2018 12:53:04 #
kdogg
Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV
Tokina has a 11-16mm 2.8 with IS a great ultra wide. It is very good for night sky photography. I love mine. Bought on eBay for less than $300.00 it did take losing several auctions but was worth it.
Oct 22, 2018 14:43:52 #
ktrudell wrote:
Is the image stabilization worth the diff and how often will I need the 2.8? this would be a new lens for me. I have a 24-105 f/4L and would like to work on some wide angle landscape shots.
There are advantages to both. The IS is nice to have if you don't think you'll need to shoot at f/2.8. I use f/2.8 when I shoot the milky way and star trails. So I like the f/2.8 lens. I really don't miss the IS on such a short lens. It really helps a lot when you are using a telephoto lens though.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.