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

16-35 F2.8 L II vs III vs 16-35 f4L IS and Rokinon 14mm F2.8

Started Apr 15, 2018 | Discussions thread
gipper51 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,904
Re: 16-35 F2.8 L II vs III vs 16-35 f4L IS and Rokinon 14mm F2.8
1

hotdog321 wrote:

Canon's 16-35 f/2.8L II does not compare favorably to the new f/2.8 III or the f/4L IS. While the center sharpness if fine, the critical edges and corners would be a mess when shooting stars wide open.

The 16-35 f/4L IS is the gold standard for full frame landscape photographers, but the f/2.8 III is supposed to be even a hair sharper, but with the loss of that useful IS. The f/4L is rarely used for stars and aurora shooting while the f/2.8 would be more practical.

The Rokinon 14mm F2.8 seems to be pretty popular and affordable for that sort of thing, but you lose the zooming ability. Personally, with your requirements, I would get the 16-35 f/2.8L III, but your wallet may be the determining factor.

+1

The 16-35 f/4L is a spectacular lens.  I'd find it hard for any lens to be much better.  The only reason to pay more is for a faster aperture.  Is f2.8 worth double the price for your requirements?  That is the only question that needs answered IMHO.

If you can afford it and don't mind the extra size/weight, the f2.8 III is as good as UWA zooms get.  As for me, I'm thrilled with the f/4 IS and won't even be thinking about replacing any time soon.  But...I'm not an astro shooter.

-- hide signature --
 gipper51's gear list:gipper51's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Canon EOS R6 Mark II Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +20 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow