# Canon 16-35MM F4 IS or 16-35MM 2.8?



## Cheekysascha (Apr 13, 2016)

I'm mainly shooting adventure stuff like campfire nights, landscapes and "journey" pictures so I'm looking for something a bit more flexible then my Canon 14mm 2.8

So to those of you who bought the F4 IS version over the 2.8? did the loss of light effect your photography in any way? & is there any other advantage to the F4 IS version besides IS and the much better sharpness that everyone says it has?


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 13, 2016)

The IS and extra sharpness you mentioned (along with the lower price) were all the features I needed to choose this over the 16-35/2.8, when I was upgrading from my 17-40. 

The IS (more than) compensates for the one stop of light lost, and DoF isn't usually as great an issue in UWA applications. 

I would think that the only downsides would be (a) you absolutely _need_ the extra stop or (b) slightly slower AF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2016)

Cheekysascha said:


> I'm mainly shooting adventure stuff like campfire nights





JonAustin said:


> The IS (more than) compensates for the one stop of light lost



To me, 'campfire nights' says people – often moving people – and IS does nothing at all to compensate for _subject_ motion, only camera shake. 

*Cheekysascha*, look over your 14/2.8 images, what proportion of them are at f/2.8 - f/4 and a shutter speed you would not want slower by 1-3 stops?

Personally, I sold my 16-35/2.8L II and considered the 16-35/4L IS (because very few of my shots fell into the above category), but I decided to get the TS-E 17 instead.


----------



## bhf3737 (Apr 14, 2016)

I have both. The f/2.8 version produces images with warmer color suitable for landscape photography but has soft edges, that may be problem for panoramic photos. The f/4 is sharper both at the center and corners. On a 5DSr I have found f/4 focusing faster. The f/4 is also lighter and has standard 77mm filter instead of 82mm of f/2.8. Overall, I have found f/4 staying on the camera more but I sometimes miss the color rendering of the f/2.8.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 14, 2016)

bhf3737 said:


> I have both. The f/2.8 version produces images with warmer color suitable for landscape photography but has soft edges, that may be problem for panoramic photos. The f/4 is sharper both at the center and corners. On a 5DSr I have found f/4 focusing faster. The f/4 is also lighter and has standard 77mm filter instead of 82mm of f/2.8. Overall, I have found f/4 staying on the camera more but I sometimes miss the color rendering of the f/2.8.



So make a custom profile for the f4 to match the colours of the f2.8, it is digital you know, there is no 'natural' colour or 'intrinsic' nature to a digital capture, it is all recorded in red green or blue and demosaiced.

As for the OP, I moved from the f2.8 to the f4 (and then on to the 11-24) the only time I mossed the f2.8 was dark wedding receptions, other than that the f4 blows the f2.8 away in every metric, it is a stunningly good UWA zoom.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 14, 2016)

When you compare both lenses at f/5.6, there is little difference. If you need f/2.8, there is little choice. IS helps for video, but realistically, for people that move, it is of little help.

Get the one that works for you, they are both good lenses.


----------



## d (Apr 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> To me, 'campfire nights' says people – often moving people – and IS does nothing at all to compensate for _subject_ motion, only camera shake.
> 
> *Cheekysascha*, look over your 14/2.8 images, what proportion of them are at f/2.8 - f/4 and a shutter speed you would not want slower by 1-3 stops?
> 
> Personally, I sold my 16-35/2.8L II and considered the 16-35/4L IS (because very few of my shots fell into the above category), but I decided to get the TS-E 17 instead.



This.

Personally, I'd be looking for any excuse *not* to buy the 16-35 2.8 - it's corners are soft as others have mentioned, and it's about due for an update anyway (rumoured to be not far away, though don't go making too many choices based on rumours!).

Here's another thing to look at when reviewing your images....if you do have a few shots at 2.8 with the 14mm, have a look at the ISO they were shot at and ask yourself you'd still be happy with the IQ if they were shot a stop higher in ISO. If yes, then you've regained your stop lost going from 2.8 -> 4.

Cheers,
d.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 14, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> When you compare both lenses at f/5.6, there is little difference. If you need f/2.8, there is little choice. IS helps for video, but realistically, for people that move, it is of little help.
> 
> Get the one that works for you, they are both good lenses.



Tests be damned, one is a good lens the other is a great lens. The 2.8 is a compromised and old design, the f4 is a cutting edge design that completely outclasses all other Canon UWA zooms, even the 11-24, for image quality. 

In my personal experience there is a clear difference in actual images in anything off center even at f8.


----------



## monkey44 (Apr 14, 2016)

QUOTE: Here's another thing to look at when reviewing your images....if you do have a few shots at 2.8 with the 14mm, have a look at the ISO they were shot at and ask yourself you'd still be happy with the IQ if they were shot a stop higher in ISO. If yes, then you've regained your stop lost going from 2.8 -> 4.


This is the answer you need to evaluate -- if you're not shooting at f2.8 often, then one stop means - well, not much. And depending on the camera, one stop higher ISO will not hurt the image much either. I've never shot with the f2.8, but own the f4, and it's truly a beauty.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > The IS (more than) compensates for the one stop of light lost
> ...



I guess I don't have all that much campfire photography experience (umm, none actually), but I imagined that the folks gathered 'round one wouldn't be moving all that much ... or all that fast.

In any event, as hinted at by *d* earlier, one can of course also compensate for the smaller maximum aperture by bumping up the ISO.

Back to our regularly scheduled program ...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 14, 2016)

I have owned and used the original 16-35 f/2.8 ver. 1 for years. For all kinds of indoor, low light and outdoor stuff, campfires, etc. But even f/2.8 is too slow for campfires. I got a EF 28mm f/1.8 prime for campfires. Lately I've been trying to get used to a better 35 f/2 IS prime to replace it. I also like wide lenses so it's tough.

The point I'm making is that I LOVE the 16-35 f/2.8L ver. 1 and since I got the 16-35 f/4L IS a year ago, I rarely use the f/2.8. Because when I use the f/4L, I can bump the ISO a bit in camera and bump the exposure a bit in post and I'm done. The f/4 is a better lens and renders a better image.

If I'm in very low light, f/2.8 barely cuts it anyway. I reach for a faster prime lens and start working harder with keeping still, using manual focus and taking a LOT of shots. You can also maybe cool off a diffused/gelled flash 2-3 stops and get some interesting campfire shots.

BTW, don't go nuts on finding a fast L prime chasing better low light shots. I owned a 35 f/1.4 and 24 f/1.4 II while I was seeking the 'ultimate' campfire and dark environment lens and honestly, shooting things in darkness pretty much negates any advantage you get from a fast $1500+ prime lens. And once you get past f/1.8 the thinner DOF makes it difficult to get much in focus anyway. And focusing in the dark, often manually, can be a bitch. Just get the fastest EF you can afford in the focal length that works best for you at the campfires and call it done. Then use the great 16-35 f/4 IS for everything else... indoor, etc.

Have fun and let us know what you decide. Share a few pics! Yay!


----------



## pwp (Apr 14, 2016)

I dumped the 16-35 f/2.8II for the f/4is a couple of months ago. 
All I can say is "_at last_"...a Canon L UWA zoom that I can trust on any type of job or project. Love it.

-pw


----------



## niels123 (Apr 14, 2016)

RustyTheGeek said:


> I have owned and used the original 16-35 f/2.8 ver. 1 for years. For all kinds of indoor, low light and outdoor stuff, campfires, etc. But even f/2.8 is too slow for campfires. I got a EF 28mm f/1.8 prime for campfires. Lately I've been trying to get used to a better 35 f/2 IS prime to replace it. I also like wide lenses so it's tough.
> 
> The point I'm making is that I LOVE the 16-35 f/2.8L ver. 1 and since I got the 16-35 f/4L IS a year ago, I rarely use the f/2.8. Because when I use the f/4L, I can bump the ISO a bit in camera and bump the exposure a bit in post and I'm done. The f/4 is a better lens and renders a better image.
> 
> ...



Did you look into the Sigma 24mm f/1.4 ART? I own it and it is really quite sharp wide open already. At f/1.6 or f/1.8 it is tag sharp  It is extremely usuable wide open and f/1.4 is much more convenient than f/2 or f/2.8.


----------



## Zv (Apr 14, 2016)

I don't have any experience with the 16-35 f/2.8 but I have used my fair share of UWA lenses and the 16-35 f/4 brings a huge smile to my face every time I use it! This is the lens I've always wanted! 

Unless you're doing run and gun photojournalism or weddings I can't see much of a benefit of the f/2.8 over the f/4 IS. 

The image stabilization is a lot more useful than you expect it to be. When I'm all worked up and in the zone I often forget all about good technique (not sure it was there to begin with  ) but the IS saves the day! Even if it's just to get a quick test shot before setting up the tripod, saves time with composition. And those places where a tripod just wouldn't be practical? Down to about 1s you can get a relatively usable shot if you brace yourself, maybe longer if the camera is balanced on something solid. With the f/2.8 you'd be at around 1/30s which even wide open is gonna push the ISO higher than a 1s shot at f/4. Heck you can shoot f/8 in the dark handheld if you want! (YMMV)


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 14, 2016)

Cheekysascha said:


> I'm mainly shooting adventure stuff like campfire nights, landscapes and "journey" pictures so I'm looking for something a bit more flexible then my Canon 14mm 2.8
> 
> So to those of you who bought the F4 IS version over the 2.8? did the loss of light effect your photography in any way? & is there any other advantage to the F4 IS version besides IS and the much better sharpness that everyone says it has?


I like the contrast produced by the 16-35/4L IS, its sharpness, color rendering, weight & portability and IS. It is the perfect landscape lens. For campfires, you have to stop down a little bit (around f4-5.6) anyway to get more people in focus, since DOF for f/2.8 could be too shallow.
I had the 16-35/2.8L II and sold it to buy the newest lens with IS.


----------



## SPL (Apr 14, 2016)

Just my two cents….

I owned the 17-40mm for several years and always felt that it was quite soft. I sold it, and replaced it with the 16-35/4L IS. I am very happy with the 16-35/4L IS. The IQ is fantastic and the IS comes in handy (which I thought I would never use…).


----------



## Cheekysascha (Apr 15, 2016)

All of you guys make good points, besides even if I get the 16-35mm f4 is I still will have the 14mm 2.8 ii for low light wide angle stuff, however with the ton of rumors about the 16-35mm 2.8 iii coming out how much would you guys estimate that lens will cost? & should i wait for it and save my money /wait for it and buy the 16-35mm f4 is now?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 15, 2016)

A MkIII f2.8 will cost more than twice as much as the superb f4, so is one stop in this focal length range and no IS worth an extra $1,500 to you? That is the second question, the first is, if this MkIII comes (and it must do sooner or later) when will that be? 

Used f4 IS's sell for good money, the cost of ownership is almost negligible.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 15, 2016)

Buy the f/4 now, sell it later. L lenses hold their value well and I estimate (based on my own experience) that depending on what you pay for the f/4, if you sell it in a year or two you will probably only lose approx. $100 - $300 for the privilege of using it for that time. Pretty decent "exclusive rental" cost if you ask me.

If you buy it used it will cost you less later when you sell it. Try to buy one with the box and accessories and that helps sell it later (larger market) unless you get a super great price for a lens only deal.


----------



## LovePhotography (Apr 15, 2016)

Cheekysascha said:


> I'm mainly shooting adventure stuff like campfire nights, landscapes and "journey" pictures so I'm looking for something a bit more flexible then my Canon 14mm 2.8
> 
> So to those of you who bought the F4 IS version over the 2.8? did the loss of light effect your photography in any way? & is there any other advantage to the F4 IS version besides IS and the much better sharpness that everyone says it has?



Most people sitting around campfires are essentially motionless. I had the 2.8 and *hated* it. First Canon lens I've hated. Took some once in a lifetime graduation ceremony photos, and they we NOT good. First time in a while I was mad at an inanimate object. Perhaps I had a particularly bad copy. BUT, I've been as pleased with the f/4 as I was displeased with the f/2.8. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Zv (Apr 15, 2016)

Cheekysascha said:


> All of you guys make good points, besides even if I get the 16-35mm f4 is I still will have the 14mm 2.8 ii for low light wide angle stuff, however with the ton of rumors about the 16-35mm 2.8 iii coming out how much would you guys estimate that lens will cost? & should i wait for it and save my money /wait for it and buy the 16-35mm f4 is now?



Buy the f/4 now. Don't wait for an unspecified amount of time, you'll just be wasting precious shooting opportunities if you do that. And what if it's priced over 2K when it finally _does_ materialize and you decide that it's too much? The f/4 is a lens that exists now and you can have it in your hands and be out shooting with it. 

I toyed with the idea of the f/4 for a while, humming and hawing and procrastinating. Now I think back to some trips where I could've really benefited from that IS and think "I'm an idiot, should've bought it long ago". Nevertheless I got some pretty good shots mind you from my 17-40L but I keep thinking how awesome they'd be if only ... 

Don't do what I did. Get it. Use it. Enjoy it!


----------



## crazydogrun (Apr 15, 2016)

Like many others, I have owned both and highly recommend the f/4. I sold the f/2.8 to get the f/4. My copy of the f/2.8 ll was my least favorite Canon lens and was rarely used (soft corners, soft wide open, poor IQ for landscape work). On the other hand, my f/4 is fantastic for landscapes and is frequently used.


----------



## pwp (Apr 18, 2016)

crazydogrun said:


> Like many others, I have owned both and highly recommend the f/4. I sold the f/2.8 to get the f/4. My copy of the f/2.8 ll was my least favorite Canon lens and was rarely used (soft corners, soft wide open, poor IQ for landscape work). On the other hand, my f/4 is fantastic for landscapes and is frequently used.



This exactly mirrors my experience. The 16-35 f/2.8II has been a disappointment for a lot of photographers not lucky enough to have scored one of the rare good copies. Dollar wise, it was a straight swap from my 2008 16-35 f/2.8II to a new16-35 f/4is. As I said earlier, "_at last_", an UWA zoom I can completely trust.

-pw


----------



## Cheekysascha (Apr 20, 2016)

Thank you so much for all the input and recommendations on which lens to pick up, I decided to go for the 16-35mm f4 is for it's insane sharpness at the corners and also I figured I can just use my 14mm 2.8ii and 24 and 35 primes at night if I do want to do northern lights and astro stuff  thanks for all the help!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Apr 20, 2016)

Great! Hope you enjoy it! Let us know how you like it. Based on your other gear, I think this is a logical next item.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 20, 2016)

Cheekysascha said:


> Thank you so much for all the input and recommendations on which lens to pick up, I decided to go for the 16-35mm f4 is for it's insane sharpness at the corners and also I figured I can just use my 14mm 2.8ii and 24 and 35 primes at night if I do want to do northern lights and astro stuff  thanks for all the help!



That lens definitely complements your prime collection! I'm still waiting for that 16-35 f2.8 IS (or non-IS mkIII) for night photography. In the mean time the 16-35 f4 is so tempting


----------



## krisbell (Aug 15, 2016)

I still absolutely love my 16-35mm f4. I upgraded from the 2.8 III and it is so much better...



Creepy Street by Kris Bell, on Flickr


----------



## monkey44 (Aug 15, 2016)

Yeah - the f4 is awesome, haven't found any reason to change it - or even think about an upgrade that might no really be an 'upgrade' ...


----------



## iaind (Sep 20, 2016)

Upgraded my 17-35 2.8L to 16-35 4L IS and don't miss the extra stop.


----------



## Bernd FMC (Sep 21, 2016)

I also slowly looking for an Replacement for my 17-40 L - but i dont often use UWW.

A Friend of mine started with DSLR not that long ago and i told her to buy the f4 IS - she is absolutly happy with this Lens.

The Pictures taken with the f4 IS are superb 8) .

I would like to get an "extreme" UWW for especially UWW usage - the new 16-35 f2.8 III L seems to be nice for Photojounalist style of Photos - but would i use it really often as an Amateur - also have an 24-70 2.8 II in the Bag ?

Actually i took a second Look at the 11-24 f4 L - also the TS-E 17 - at my local "Dealer" - both nice Lenses - both heavy with bulbus Front Elements ( logical .. ) .

Price Tag of the 2.8 V III is actual really heavy - MFT Charts look pretty good but not that better than f4 IS.

I should wait and find my preferred Needs - converging lines are an Issue on my UWW Shots - TS-E 17 could serve this ( or 11-24 and crop the Image ) .

Just my "while first Coffee" thoughts

Greetings 

Bernd


----------



## hendrik-sg (Sep 21, 2016)

The 17 TS/s is really wonderful.... if the convergin lines are a concern (as for me) this one is the answer. beside that, it has almost no distortion and very low vignetting as long as it's not T'ed or S'ed. 

For me the missing filter thread is no problem, polarizers are not so easy on ultrawides, because they darken ununiformly which may look strange. 

I did not compare them in detail, but i would expect the IQ to be better from the 17 shifted than 11mm cropped. The 11-24 is not a "walk around" lens despite beeing a zoom, 24mm at the long end are quite limiting. 

Only concerns with the TS lens are:

- It should always have the cap on, except when actually shooting 
- operating is slow when shifted, because the light metering does not work then, you need to adjust your exposure manually, 
- overshifted images look really bad, this happens if the lens is directed downwards, so i always use the camera level if i do not hav the tripod with me
- optimisically spoken, shooting tilted needs a lot of luck when focussing without tripod, i would state that this requires a tripod. This because focusing turns the plane of focus and makes focussing a tilted shot a itterative process.


----------



## Bernd FMC (Sep 21, 2016)

I know the 17 TS-E is a Bit difficult to use - but thats not a Problem - for fast Point&Shoot it is the wrong Choice .

I would use ist on Tripod most of the Time - an 11-24 or 16-35 are more handhold compatible :


----------

