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
Selene Senior Member • Posts: 1,308
Re: 16-35 F2.8 L II vs III vs 16-35 f4L IS and Rokinon 14mm F2.8

I haven't used the 16-35 2.8 II, but I have used the other 3 lenses and seen pictures from the 2.8 II.  The 2.8 II maybe made sense when it first came out, but it is more expensive for a much reduced image quality than you can get from the 16-35 F4.

The F4 version is an amazing lens and is really terrific as a traveling lens for the 6D.  It is a good light weight combo that allows you to take great pictures in a variety of lighting conditions, including dark European churches (which do have some light through stain glassed windows).

The one thing it isn't good for is astrophotography. You really need a lens that is F 2.8 or faster.  The 2.8 III version is excellent for astrophotography and every bit as good if not better than the F4 version, but it is heavier and more expensive. If you will be doing Astrophotography on a regular basis, it is probably your best choice.

People say the Rokinon is great if you get a good copy.  I didn't. It was by far the worst lens I have ever owned.  I have yet to see one that has satisfactory image quality, though they must exist as many people swear by them.

The 16-35 F4 version is a really super lens.  It might be worth thinking about where you live and what kind of astrophotography you will be doing. The f4 is fine for night photography, but not really good enough for milky way shots in dark skies.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow