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

Andy01 wrote:

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

Aha

i am based out of Singapore and here I don’t have official dealers for neither Rokinon nor Irix. And was planning to buy from an official dealer in Hong Kong, which I’m visiting from April 28.

One of my biggest reasons to switch to Irix was Rokinon’s well documented quality issues between units.

Now, I would buy early during my trip and use the lens, so that if required, I can change it before leaving Hong Kong itself.

Thanks