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

spyder0109 wrote:

Selene wrote:

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.

Thanks Selene for a very elaborate response.

I am sure III version is the best but the really high price and my limited usage doesn't really warrant a purchase of such a lens.

To answer a part of your question, I will NOT be doing astro-photography regularly but probably couple of times in the entire year. I live in Singapore so I get to click astro shots only when I'm traveling and which is not so often than normal.

My key dilemma was having two lens combo 16-35 f4 and Rokinon 14 f2.8 OR 16-15 F2.8 II. Because the later will provide a single-lens solution, and is priced similar to the prior mentioned combination.

For a 1-lens solution I would consider the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC or the new Sigma Art 14-24 2.8 a better option as opposed to the Canon 16-35 2.8 iii.

For a 2-lens solution, your best bet would be the Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS and either the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8 or the new Samyamg XP 14mm 2.4 or the old Samyang 14mm 2.8.

As you seem to suggest a less than occasional astro shooter, the old Samyang seems the appropriate choice. You may upgrade in the future if your interest in astro increases. This solution will also allow you to easily use filters which would be cumbersome with the 1-lens solutions above due to the bulbous front elements.