DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

16-35 4L IS vs 16-35 2.8L II?

Started Aug 10, 2016 | Questions thread
hotdog321
hotdog321 Forum Pro • Posts: 21,141
Re: 16-35 4L IS vs 16-35 2.8L II?
1

ahnafakeef298 wrote:

Everything I've read so far says that the 4L is sharper - both at bigger apertures and in the corners.

1. Which one is sharper at f 8,11,16?

2. Excuse the amateur question, but what reasons could possibly make me want the 2.8L II over the 4L?

My primary intention here is landscapes. Astro isn't of any concern.

Thank you.

Very sensible question--I've heavily used both for years:

When stopped down to, say, f/8 the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 16-35 f/4L IS are about equally sharp. But at f/4, the edges and corners of the 16-35 f/2.8 is pretty awful and the f/4 IS version blows it out of the water. Center sharpness is about equal even at f/4, though.

Photographers bought the f/2.8 lens for years because they needed the f/2.8 speed. For instance, for photojournalism or night sky photography. But these days the f/4L IS is so superior that most opt to use it instead.

For your purposes the choice is crystal clear: buy the 16-35 f/4L IS.

-- hide signature --
 hotdog321's gear list:hotdog321's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow