# 16-35 2.8 III Vs 16-35 f4 is?



## Cheekysascha (Dec 24, 2016)

Hey everyone, so i've been thinking about adding the 16-35 2.8 iii to pair with my 24-70 2.8 ii and 70-200 2.8 ii is

The only problem is that i currently already own the 14mm 2.8 ii and the 16-35mm f4 is so i would probably sell the f4 or even both to fund it but was curious to those of you who own the new mk3 version why did you upgrade/pick it over the f4 is? The only difference i can currently see is the increase in sharpness and it being f2.8 but at the same time it loses the IS.

I'm not really sure in the end if it's worth it for me to upgrade but mainly just wanted your thoughts/opinion on the lens


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 24, 2016)

I am curious as to what responses you'll get on this thread too. I started with the 16-35 f/2.8 II, and swapped it for the f/4 IS. I thought it would be a stop-gap measure until the 16-35 f/2.8 III came out, but now that it's out, I'm deciding to hold out a bit until the price of the 16-35 f/2.8 III drops a bit. The IS has come in handy at times, but I still miss having that extra stop at times too.

I used to have the 14 f/2.8 as well, but that was sold to fund a different lens acquisition. I liked the compactness of the 14 f/2.8. Many of the ultrawide zooms are big and heavy.


----------



## tron (Dec 24, 2016)

I too have the 14 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS and was thinking into consolidating them into 16-35 2.8 III.

But the 16-35 4 IS is perfect for landscapes (and I use the IS in museums) and the 14 2.8 II which I use in astro has less vignetting fully open than the 16-36 2.8 III at 16mm fully open. So I can see no reason for the upgrade.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 24, 2016)

tron said:


> I too have the 14 2.8 II and the 16-35 4 IS and was thinking into consolidating them into 16-35 2.8 III.
> 
> But the 16-35 4 IS is perfect for landscapes (and I use the IS in museums) and the 14 2.8 II which I use in astro has less vignetting fully open than the 16-36 2.8 III at 16mm fully open. So I can see no reason for the upgrade.




I used to think I couldn't live with the f/4 max aperture, but I like it so much, and I have the 24-70mm 2.8...Just not currently finding the need for indoor ambient from 16 to 23mm so much that I need the 2.8.

Plus, I've finally started using my 16-35mm f/4 IS for video, and the IS is indispensable.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 26, 2016)

If there was a 16-24 f/2.8L I'd be all over it. The overlap with the 24-70 at 24-35 just weirds me out. I just don't understand it. 11-24mm would just be too wide for me.

That said, I understand the 16-35 f/4L IS is excellent. Been reading that the 16-35 f/2.8L III has a lot of vignette (4 stops?).

I ended up with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 and find I never use it. Excellent lens, I just never have to shoot that wide out here in the desert. If I lived in a big city I would probably use it much more.

I'm thinking a 16-35 would be the same. 24-70 is plenty wide for me and I wish now that I had gotten the 14mm you have instead of an ultra wide zoom (Tamron) for when I want to shoot astro.

Have fun choosing!


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If there was a 16-24 f/2.8L I'd be all over it. The overlap with the 24-70 at 24-35 just weirds me out. I just don't understand it. 11-24mm would just be too wide for me.
> 
> That said, I understand the 16-35 f/4L IS is excellent. Been reading that the 16-35 f/2.8L III has a lot of vignette (4 stops?).
> 
> ...


Although i use Canon lenses (apart from a Zeiss 21mm I really like) I have to tell you that your 15-30 Tamron has excellent reviews (including astro use due to low coma).


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 27, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> I am curious as to what responses you'll get on this thread too. I started with the 16-35 f/2.8 II, and swapped it for the f/4 IS. I thought it would be a stop-gap measure until the 16-35 f/2.8 III came out, but now that it's out, I'm deciding to hold out a bit until the price of the 16-35 f/2.8 III drops a bit. The IS has come in handy at times, but I still miss having that extra stop at times too.
> 
> I used to have the 14 f/2.8 as well, but that was sold to fund a different lens acquisition. I liked the compactness of the 14 f/2.8. Many of the ultrawide zooms are big and heavy.



Over Christmas, I was using the 16-35 f/4 IS and really would have preferred having the f/2.8 instead. 1/30s at ISO 3200 with mixed lighting was painful. Eventually switched to a faster 24 prime. Waiting for the price of the III to drop a little bit more before giving that a try.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 28, 2016)

tron said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a 16-24 f/2.8L I'd be all over it. The overlap with the 24-70 at 24-35 just weirds me out. I just don't understand it. 11-24mm would just be too wide for me.
> ...



Don't get me wrong, it does a great job. I just don't use it much. There are only so many photos of the Milky Way I can take and not lose interest. It is useless for the moon and I have no interest in the constellations.

I thought, when I bought it, that I'd be doing Real Estate work. That didn't pan out.

In a big city or in cramped landscapes I would probably find more reason to use it. I just don't use it.

I believe I said, "excellent lens" concerning the Tamron and I read many reviews before purchase.


----------



## tron (Dec 28, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


Yes of course you said so but you said you wished you had gotten the Canon 14 II which confuses me since Tamron does an equally good job with Canon 14 II and is cheaper. It also has less coma than the Canon.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 28, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If there was a 16-24 f/2.8L I'd be all over it. The overlap with the 24-70 at 24-35 just weirds me out. I just don't understand it. 11-24mm would just be too wide for me.
> 
> That said, I understand the 16-35 f/4L IS is excellent. Been reading that the 16-35 f/2.8L III has a lot of vignette (4 stops?).
> 
> ...



Overlap is good when it reduces the need to change lenses as often as no overlap, but I understand the perception that we are paying for some redundancy. I just don't think the perception is important in real world use.

I'm sorry Canon went with 11-24mm f/4 rather than 14-24mm f/2.8, but the Nikon grass is still far from greener.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 28, 2016)

tron said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



Lol! Don't get too twisted up and confused by the preferences of others.  

The price isn't the issue. I wouldn't buy either one today. I have no need for anything that wide. 

Coma wouldn't be the problem either because I don't do astro. 

As I said, "24mm is plenty wide for me."

Could I sell the Tamron? Of course. However, I think the resale value of the Canon would have been better as far as recouping $$$$ goes. That's just an opinion: my gut feeling.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 28, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a 16-24 f/2.8L I'd be all over it. The overlap with the 24-70 at 24-35 just weirds me out. I just don't understand it. 11-24mm would just be too wide for me.
> ...



I don't worry I paid for redundancy. I just don't like the way the redundancy looks on paper when I type out my inventory. It is a personal problem, not a real problem with the lenses.


----------

