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

spyder0109 wrote:

Landscapeforfun wrote:

Be careful of the 16-35 f/2.8 III. While it is fantastically sharp it is really only f/2.8 in the center. It has over twice as much vingetting in the corners compared to the 16-35 f4. The 16-35 f/4 will actually give you a brighter image in about 30% of the frame. This is important for Astro since your stars are likely to be most prominent in those areas.

Option 4 would be the tamron 15-30 f/2.8. It’s very sharp, has IS, and is priced similarly to the 16-35 f/4. It is an amazing deal but doesn’t take screw on filters and is quite heavy.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I have more or less made up my mind to first buy Irix (not rokinon) 15mm f/2.4 for astro requirements. And in next 2-3 months or so, if required I will go for Canon L-series 16-35 F/4 IS.

I have heard some good reviews from Tamron 15-30 but yes it being very heavy was a deal-breaker for me. (And it being tamron as well - i am kinda biased to L-series lenses - would rather get it)

With the Irix 15mm, make sure it is somewhere reliable that will accept returns. I have just received my second copy, and so far, not happy with it either. Nice features, but it seems quite soft for distant subjects - daytime only so far.

In theory it seems like a nice lens, and online pics are nice and sharp, and I thought it would have to be better than a Samyang / Rokinon 14mm f2.8 (which has a particularly poor reputation for QC) but it seems that Irix is not much better.

Colin