# $2,000 14-24 f2.8, vs $1,800 16-35 f2.8 IS, vs $3,000 11-24 f4



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2015)

EDIT: The wording of my first question seems confusing, so here is V2.

If somebody was to give you the choice of one of the above options as a gift which would you find most beneficial for your photography, or which would you most like to own.

No selling to get something else or other work arounds, which of the three choices would you most ike in your bag?

------------------------------------------------

Earlier version:

To refine the question a little, the 14-24 and 11-24 both have bulbous front elements and need a Wonderpana style filter solution, the 16-35 would have a regular 82mm filter thread.

As a sub question, how much would cost impact your purchase, if they were all the same price which would you buy or covet the most?


----------



## PhotographerJim (Feb 9, 2015)

Where's the 16-35 f/4 ? I've loaned one from CPS new, and it was amazing. That's what I'm saving for


----------



## SPL (Feb 9, 2015)

+1 on the 16-35 f4. 77mm thread and its amazingly sharp! It's a fantastic lens! If I need more than 16mm, I'll rent.


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Feb 9, 2015)

PhotographerJim said:


> Where's the 16-35 f/4 ? I've loaned one from CPS new, and it was amazing. That's what I'm saving for



...or the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 at $1,199, which is what I'm saving for.


----------



## Click (Feb 9, 2015)

One more vote for the 16-35 f/4


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2015)

The 16-35 f4 IS (I know how good it is I have one as well) and Tamron are not in there because this more of a 'what if' postulation. There were many heated threads during the various 11-24 rumours with people saying it must have this or it must have that.

I was interested in how many people think the option Canon actually gave us was the right one in the Blue Ribbon ultra wide zoom class.

Personally I will be getting the 11-24 f4, primarily because it goes to 11, I don't really care about IS or f2.8 in that lens as the paying work I do with it will always be on a tripod and not f4. But if a 16-35 f2.8 IS came out the brand new 16-35 f4 IS would be sold to get it as well.

So I gave two fictitious specs to see how popular the various choices actually are in comparison to what we got, lets face it Canon could have done any of them and it would have been great, but a rectilinear 11mm! That is, like the 17TS-E (which I also have) and the 65MP-E, just showing off. Canon might not have the 'best' DR, but they are beating the crap out of everybody for lenses.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Feb 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> To refine the question a little, the 14-24 and 11-24 both have bulbous front elements and need a Wonderpana style filter solution, the 16-35 would have a regular 82mm filter thread.
> 
> As a sub question, how much would cost impact your purchase, if they were all the same price which would you buy or covet the most?



even if the price was the same the 16-35 will still be my choice
its about the same angle of view as the 10-22 ef-s the wider you go the more distortion you get.
also you will have to really watch your light sources as flare is always a possibility.


----------



## surapon (Feb 9, 2015)

Dear Friends.
Sorry, I do not want to spend money more than $ 1,000 US Dollars for These Canon ultra-Wide zoom lenses, Because I already have a good Prime Lens by : Rokinon 14 MM F/ 2.8 For All Canon EOS just = $ 367 US Dollars, And Great Photos VIA. my Old 66 years old eyes.

http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE14M-C-Ultra-Canon-Black/dp/B003VSGQPG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1423447432&sr=8-1&keywords=rokinon+14+mm.

Have a good Sunday night , Sir/ Madame
Surapon


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 9, 2015)

Surapon,

I appreciate your honesty but that isn't the spirit of the question. 

Think of it like this, if somebody was to give you one of the three options which one would you find most appealing for your own photography?


----------



## PhotographerJim (Feb 9, 2015)

Ok, I reread everything and now I understand was is being asked. I think the 16-35 option for me, I'd like the ability to use normal CP filters on it, the longer zoom range and IS to boot. Looks like what I'd want in a wide zoom.


----------



## Vivid Color (Feb 9, 2015)

The way the question was phrased, I thought we were voting on actual lenses and I didn't read the survey carefully to see that was not the case. Please subtract my vote from the fictitious 16 to 35 mm lens. I'd rather have the real f/4 version. That said, I'm basing my answer on what I think is the best value for my own money. If money were no object, then the new 11 to 24 mm lens is very enticing.


----------



## Mr1Dx (Feb 9, 2015)

11-24 as an add on


----------



## ejenner (Feb 9, 2015)

I must admit, I didn't quite get the point, but would have still voted 11-24. Not sure if I will actually get one, but I use these primarily for landscapes where f4+ is plenty. Even in low light I have to say I usually want at least f4 for DOF. Very occasionally I would like to have a fast UWA, but if I felt I needed it enough I's get the 24L. For astro I'd get the Rok 14mm.

So although so many people have said they really want f2.8, I actually think Canon have it right. I mean how sharp do you need corners at f2.8 when you are dealing with a limited DOF anyway, even in an UWA. And there still is the 16-35 f2.8 for that.

If the latest lenses were 2.8 and the same size with corners only slightly better than the previous UWA's I think more people would have passed on them.

I do think there is room for an updated UWA 2.8 though. Since Canon seems now to be able to make sharp f4's I think it will happen. What FL is possible something that is being debated if a 2.8 is on the cards. After all the 16-35 2.8 is very popular, OTOH 14-24 2.8 would also make a lot of sense. I would be very surprised if they have IS though.


----------



## cid (Feb 9, 2015)

I own 16-35 f/4 it's awesome really

BUT

I have seen video and some samples from 11-24 and @11mm it just looks awesome, creates lot's of guiding lines in landscape, it just makes me want it

BUT

there is question of money and if I consider spending so much money (or more  )on lens, then it would be on some telephoto (still looking forward to 400 DO mk II reviews and image samples)


----------



## Rahul (Feb 9, 2015)

I have the 16-35 f/2.8L II and did not upgrade to the f/4 IS when it was released last year. I had been considering the f/4 but now I'll be buying the 11-24 as soon as it becomes available. The 16-35 will be, of course, sold!


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 9, 2015)

Rahul said:


> I have the 16-35 f/2.8L II and did not upgrade to the f/4 IS when it was released last year.



I don't see a f4 uwa as an "upgrade", rather than a "sidegrade". It's hard enough as it is to get any bokeh/background separation from a wide angle lens, and f2.8 can make a difference. On longer lenses, one stop more of light probably is the reason to go f2.8, as f4 can already provide plenty of background blur.

That's why I'd like to have a simply 14-24/2.8 - very wide w/o being too much of a "speciality lens" and no IS that doesn't make sense when somehting's moving and is one more part that costs €€€ and can break.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 9, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 16-35 f/2.8L II and did not upgrade to the f/4 IS when it was released last year.
> ...



Personally I think that the IS and corner sharpness of the f/4 is "upgrade" over the f/2.8. 

I was sort of hoping against hope that Canon would release a 16-35 f/2.8 IS III but now with the 11-24 f/4 and 16-35 f/4 IS in the WA lineup, I just don't see it happening. 

My biggest concern with the 11-24 is the bulbous front element which makes it a dainty to use when I'm out in the crowded parts of India I photograph. My WA lenses have protection filters in such cases, something I won't be able to use on the 11-24. Maybe I'll be able to build myself a case to get the 16-35 f/4 as well.


----------



## surapon (Feb 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Surapon,
> 
> I appreciate your honesty but that isn't the spirit of the question.
> 
> Think of it like this, if somebody was to give you one of the three options which one would you find most appealing for your own photography?



Thanks you, Sir, Dear Teacher Mr. privatebydesign
Yes, I love to have Canon EF 11-24 f4 L.( $ 3,000), Because of The Widest and The Sharpest of The New Lens, Look from MTF. Chart By Canon. AND from 11-24 mm. that for Landscape shot that I use with tripods and do not need IS. any ways. = A lot better than my 12 years old Tamron 11-17 MM.f/4.5-5.6 Di-II SP LD Aspherical (IF) Lens ( $ 375 US Dollars) .
Have a great work week, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## DRR (Feb 10, 2015)

16-35 f/2.8 IS, for a couple of reasons.

Versus the 11-24, there are times where there just isn't a substitute for a wider aperture. Plus you get IS on top of it. Sure, you sacrifice the 11-16 range but that is not a particularly important range for me anyway. 

Versus the 14-24, I give up 2mm on the wide end but gain 11 on the max end. Yes, each mm on the wide end makes more of a difference versus 24-35, however, with my current 16-35mm, I am generally at either 16mm or 35mm anyway because I am so used to the 35mm FL.

So of the three the 16-35 f/2.8 IS is by far the most appealing. Not that I'd turn down any gift like that though...


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 10, 2015)

11-24 f/4, not that I've made a secret of it . The real question for me is whether or not I'll keep the 16-35 f/4 IS. It's a killer lens, but will I use it considering I have the 11-24? It's a perfect travel lens as well, but then again, the EF-M 11-22 IS is 90% as good in a much more portable package.

Unless you're shooting events or sports where you really, really need that 1 extra stop to double your shutter speed, I just don't get the need for f/2.8 in this focal length range. Bokeh is not an issue and the 24 and 35 f/1.4s are two stops faster (for weddings and events) and you can always get the 24, 28 and 35 IS lenses in f/2.8, and f/2 if you need IS for video and such.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> 11-24 f/4, not that I've made a secret of it . The real question for me is whether or not I'll keep the 16-35 f/4 IS. It's a killer lens, but will I use it considering I have the 11-24? It's a perfect travel lens as well........



That is exactly my thinking. I will be getting the 11-24 (sorry Profoto, for now) but I won't be selling the 16-35 f4 IS any time soon, I shoot much more wide and ultrawide now even for portraits, which are usually environmental. I'll see how practical taking the 11-24 is on trips before letting anything go but it will be getting crowed, 16-35 f4 IS, 11-24 f4 and 17TS-E f4. Canon are very much looking after my needs at this point, now where is that 90TS-E MkII.......


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 10, 2015)

I would much rather prefer a 16-35mm f/2.8 with IS, considering the advantages of using a filter, having image stabilization and a larger focal length range than the other options. The rare times that I need a 14mm, my Rokinon will suffice.
Except... all the choices other than the $ 3K 11-24mm are unicorns at the moment


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 10, 2015)

While there is some overlap between a 14-24/2.8 and an 11-24/4, there is really very little overlap between the 16-35/4 IS and the 11-24/4. I own a 16-35/4 and have the 11-24/4 on order. Besides the obvious point that they have different focal ranges, there is the following to consider.

- The 16-35/4 can take front filters - meaning polarizers. The 11-24/4 only takes gels - so your're limited to ND filters
- IS on the 16-35/4 allows one to take shots near 1/2s - meaning situations not generally possible with something else
- The 16-35/4 does a decent job with infrared. I am not sure about the 11-24/4, but I will not know for some time because all of my IR is currently done with a filter.
- The 16-35/4 is a much smaller lens
- While both are weather proof, with the 16-35 you do not need to worry about the protruding front element


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 10, 2015)

kirispupis said:


> While there is some overlap between a 14-24/2.8 and an 11-24/4, there is really very little overlap between the 16-35/4 IS and the 11-24/4. I own a 16-35/4 and have the 11-24/4 on order. Besides the obvious point that they have different focal ranges, there is the following to consider.
> 
> - The 16-35/4 can take front filters - meaning polarizers. The 11-24/4 only takes gels - so your're limited to ND filters
> - IS on the 16-35/4 allows one to take shots near 1/2s - meaning situations not generally possible with something else
> ...


Those are some of the reasons I'm thinking about keeping the 16-35 f/4 IS, and I'll add that I find the 16-35mm range very useful. Stopping at 24mm means changing lenses, whereas 24-35 covers a lot of additional shooting. The polarizer argument is less important to me as most of my shots include the sky, but if you shoot a lot of wet rocks and such, it's a good one. My thing is that I have a ridiculous number of wide lenses already and I'm certainly not a collector - so it's more than I need or could use regularly. It's also a lot of money tied up that could be used to pay for the 11-24 outright.


----------



## kirispupis (Feb 11, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> kirispupis said:
> 
> 
> > While there is some overlap between a 14-24/2.8 and an 11-24/4, there is really very little overlap between the 16-35/4 IS and the 11-24/4. I own a 16-35/4 and have the 11-24/4 on order. Besides the obvious point that they have different focal ranges, there is the following to consider.
> ...



I am in a similar boat. I will now have the following WA lenses - 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 II, TS-E 24 II, TS-E 17, 8-15 fisheye, and 11-24/4. The problem is each has its own niche, so I have no plans to get rid of any of them.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 12, 2015)

kirispupis said:


> I am in a similar boat. I will now have the following WA lenses - 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 II, TS-E 24 II, TS-E 17, 8-15 fisheye, and 11-24/4. The problem is each has its own niche, so I have no plans to get rid of any of them.



I see I am not alone ;D

I have the 8-15, 16-35 II, 24-70 II and the TSE17. After I get the 11-24, I will probably give the 16-35 II the boot. However, given that it has proved to be a good walkaround lens for my shooting purposes, I'm also leaning towards the 16-35 f/4 IS. G.A.S. ... time will tell!


----------



## Zv (Feb 12, 2015)

16-35 f/4 IS is most appealing to me right now. Everything about it sounds perfect. Will most likely get this lens at some point (next bonus pay perhaps!). I've learned just how useful IS can be on a UWA lens from using the EF-M 11-22 and I want that in FF flavor! Only, it will be even better! ;D

The 17-40L has treated me well though and I just love the size and weight - perfectly balanced on a 6D. But if I hardly use it what's the point? Most of the wide stuff I do now is when light levels get low. And the light weight of the lens is offset by having to carry a tripod anyway!

I would love to have the 11-24 one day but it's more of a specialized lens that probably needs the higher res cameras to make it really shine and make it worthwhile. 

I just realized I have no new generation Canon lenses. What the heck am I doing?? Missing all the fun!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2015)

Zv, you can't go wrong with the 16-35 f/4 IS. It's an incredible lens and it really is a big brother of then M11-22 IS. The biggest difference is the 9 (vs. 7) aperture blades. Also, it balances really well on FF bodies and feels lighter than it looks.


----------



## Zv (Feb 12, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> Zv, you can't go wrong with the 16-35 f/4 IS. It's an incredible lens and it really is a big brother of then M11-22 IS. The biggest difference is the 9 (vs. 7) aperture blades. Also, it balances really well on FF bodies and feels lighter than it looks.



You're right I should just pull the trigger and stop procrastinating like I did with the 6D. If I sell my 17-40 it's only about another ¥60,000 more. But I promised myself not to buy anymore gear this year and just use what I have. Bah! Screw that!


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 12, 2015)

Zv said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Zv, you can't go wrong with the 16-35 f/4 IS. It's an incredible lens and it really is a big brother of then M11-22 IS. The biggest difference is the 9 (vs. 7) aperture blades. Also, it balances really well on FF bodies and feels lighter than it looks.
> ...


Where's the fun in that? Also, I dare you to find one (rational) person who has anything bad to say about the 16-35 f/4 IS


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 12, 2015)

It is true, the 16-35 f4 IS is a considerable image improvement over the 17-40 f4, and you get IS. Having got the 16-35 f4IS I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to pretty much anybody.


----------



## Memdroid (Feb 13, 2015)

I just need a new 16-35 f2.8, IS or not does not matter. Just a major jump in IQ and size like the 24-70 II did. The F4 version is not doing it to me because I need the low light advantage.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 13, 2015)

This is surprisingly tricky.
For landscape I'll take IS over an extra stop of aperture, but that lens is also the narrowest of the bunch.
If the 16-35 were a 14-24 instead then I would get that for sure, but as is I guess the 14-24 sounds best.
(If memory serves me, the 16-35 performs best above 20mm.)
If the new 11-24 has significantly improved image quality overall than the 14-24 (sharpness and distortion at the same focal length), then that would probably be my choice.
The 11-24 will be the least flexible lens of the bunch, but for ideal conditions I think it would be hard to make an argument for another lens.
I guess the best conclusion I can come to is I wish that cannon would make a 14mm f2.8 IS prime lens.


----------



## mlbaker74 (Feb 13, 2015)

It appears that I am not the only one faced with the dilemma of choosing an UWA zoom. I've had the 16-35mm f2.8 for several years now, but I've had to send it back to Canon already for an adjustment once and fear that it is about to be sent back for a second time in 2.5 years. I was about to just replace it with the 16-35 f4; I found that most of what I shot on the 16-25 f2.8 was either outdoors and/or at f4 so I doubt I'll miss the extra stop. Plus, I inherited a 14mm f2.8 lens recently, which is great under relatively low-light conditions. Now that the 11-24 has finally been announced, I am reconsidering the 16-35 f4. The extra 11-16mm zoom would sure come in handy, but the portability of the 16-35 is so nice. I rarely take my 14mm out unless I already know what I want to shoot, while the 16-35 was one of my go to walking around lenses. Tough, first world problems I guess....


----------



## RGF (Feb 25, 2015)

Of course IQ needs to be the same on all the lens to make a decision.


----------



## Finn M (Mar 4, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> It is true, the 16-35 f4 IS is a considerable image improvement over the 17-40 f4, and you get IS. Having got the 16-35 f4IS I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to pretty much anybody.



I agree.

The 16-35/4L IS is a very big improvement over both the EF 16-35/2,8L II and EF 17-40/4L. I have over the last 10 years owned many copies of both lenses, got frustrated with the IQ, sold them and after a while bought them back because Canon had no alternatives. In the end I switched to Nikon and the AF-S 14-24/2,8 which I had for three years. The IQ was very good, but it isn't possible to use filters on the Nikon, which is very important for me, and it is very large and heavy. It was therefore a great satisfaction for me to try the new 16-35/4L IS which is very sharp, actually in the same class as Nikons 14-24mm. 
16-35mm is the ideal zoom range in the wideangle area. 14mm is in my opinion too wide. Then it is better to use a 8-15mm Fisheye which I also own. If you know what you are doing, a Fisheye gives in many situations more natural pictures than a 14mm wideangle. Also with people in the frame. 

Which lens I would choose? Not the Canon 11-24/2,8 or Nikon 14-24/2,8. You can't use filter on either of them. And both of them stop on 24mm. I then had to buy also a 24-70mm zoom because I need the 18-28mm area. Silly to switch between two lenses (Which I did for many years with the Nikon) when a single 16-35mm can do it all.

The winner? None of them! The EF 16-35/4L IS is the best. It is cheaper, lighter, more compact and it takes 77mm filters. Of course it lack f2,8 but instead it has IS which is more important! Especially with the new 5Ds 50Mpix camera. Nobody really needs f2,8 for landscapes or street photos/architecture. The DOF is then too narrow. F2,8 is of course great for photographing the Northern light, but then you can buy the 14/2,8L II instead?


----------

