Re: 16-35 F2.8 L II vs III vs 16-35 f4L IS and Rokinon 14mm F2.8
spyder0109 wrote:
Hi everyone,
I recently moved to FF and have always been a fan of ultra wide angle to capture landscapes, when I was on D5100 and Tokina 11-20 F2.8 - though i'm just a photographer who loves to capture while traveling. Please note my current set up
- Canon 6D mark II
- Canon 24-70 F2.8 L II
Although everyone on DP review recommended as one-stop lens as 24-70 F2.8, my itch to get ultra wide angle has not stopped. My primary usage would be following:
- Astrophotography
- Landscapes while traveling - with and without tripod
I have cornered down on the following options
Option 1
- Canon 16-35 F4 L IS
- Rokinon 14mm F2.8
I will use the Rokinon primarily for only astrophotography, while use Canon for landscapes and all other use-cases.
Option 2
Priced similar as option 1, I get a single-lens solution, but this lens has got some critical review since III version came, but third version is LOT expensive too. I am confused if this is good or better than Option 1, then I can simply get this lens for both astro and landscape usage.
Option 3
Yes, this is the best for both, but lot more expensive as well. But is it really worth the price jump or I should stick to Option 1 or 2?
Looking forward to expertise of experts on this group.
Appreciate the support.
Dw bro, the run down is like this. The 16-35mm f/2.8 ii is not as sharp in the corners as the 16-35mm iii or f/4. F/2.8 will not matter for any of your specific shooting situations but astrophotography. So, having one lens just for astrophotography and another for all your WA stuffs is no big deal. I have also owned that lens and used it for astro. It is good, but hard to resell. Option 1 if buying used is about $500-600 cheaper than option 3 and is where I would probably choose.