Reading mode: Light Dark

16-35GM vs 16-35 F4 OR 12-24 F

Go to last post
WarrenPeas

WarrenPeas

Senior Member
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
628
Location
New York, US
I like to take city nightscapes. Is there a large difference between the 16-35GM vs the 16-35 F4? Or would you go for the 12-24 F4. I have the Distagon 35, and I'd be willing to try my hand at stitching, or is it better to have a native wide angle lens??

I appreciate any and all feedback.......
 
Only buy the 16-35 mm GM if you need f2.8.

The 12-24 mm f4 doesn't have a filter thread.

I'd decide deepening on which focal range you need more (12-15 or 25-35 mm).
 
WarrenPeas said:
I like to take city nightscapes. Is there a large difference between the 16-35GM vs the 16-35 F4? Or would you go for the 12-24 F4. I have the Distagon 35, and I'd be willing to try my hand at stitching, or is it better to have a native wide angle lens??

I appreciate any and all feedback.......
Click to expand...
 
I made the decision based on focal range. The 12-24 is FAR to the other two lenses at 12mm! :)

Seriously though, with IBIS and a fixed f4, the 12-24 is an awesome lens. I don't think at these wide focal lengths and shallow depth of field is as relevant. At 35mm, I would take a faster lens (loved the Sigma 35/1.4 Art on my d810), but for ultra wide angle, I think you should make your choice based on the focal length you feel you need. I like the ability to go ultra wide.
 
This question has been asked many times in the forum in many threads already, so you can search and find many different thoughts.

It boils down to your priority.

To me, F2.8, end to end and crossing frame sharpness. And too much stretching from UWA at 12mm side for example is not my taste and I virtually always want to fix vertical perspective and 16mm is just less to be fixed. For landscape type I can easily just stitch two photos from 16-35 to become 12mm wide with less stretching at edges. Also want to use my regular 100x100mm filter system.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums/72157693648584201

Some full size samples from FE 16-35 GM. I am very happy with this lens.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
WarrenPeas said:
PWPhotography said:
For landscape type I can easily just stitch two photos from 16-35 to become 12mm wide with less stretching at edges. Also want to use my regular 100x100mm filter system.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums/72157693648584201

Some full size samples from FE 16-35 GM. I am very happy with this lens.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Click to expand...
I'll give stitching a try, then I'll probably see if I really do need a wide angle lens.
Click to expand...
Stitching is easy and now you can do right in LR.

I did this 3-row around 40-50 RAW pictures in PTGui Pro that still has an edge and much faster and more capable for a large-scale stitching. Then there is even industry pro level stitching software that usually dedicated to a pro-grade robotic pano head such as GigaPan.

Canon 5D II with EF 70-200L/4.0 IS hand-held. The full size is about 6x larger. Guess 12mm is not wide enough :-)
Canon 5D II with EF 70-200L/4.0 IS hand-held. The full size is about 6x larger. Guess 12mm is not wide enough :-)

A7r with FE 16-35G 2 or 3 photo stitching

A7r with FE 16-35G 2 or 3 photo stitching

Most my pano photos are taken hand-held. Just follow rules of 1/3 overlapping, from left to right (but you can do other direction) from top to bottom. I used to do in M-mode to lock exposure but these days I actually prefer A-mode in auto exposure in case in the middle of panning, suddenly sun breaking out. Today's software is smart enough to nicely merge together.
WarrenPeas said:
--
IG: @DooDooYellow
Click to expand...
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
I owned the 16-35 F4 and thought it was merely acceptable - not great. A friend has the 16-35GM and it's an amazing lens...tack sharp. However, for my needs I frequently require wider than 16mm so I am currently using the 12-24G. When I first started using it I got carried away with going too wide in some instances. It was disastrous. I've learned to control myself and now shoot mostly 16 and above. But those few times when I need ultra wide for exterior buildings it's a gem. I shoot architectural. I previously had a Batis 18mm 2.8. Lovely lens but not wide enough when I needed wide. I thought I would miss having 2.8 for night/twilight shoots but the 12-24 at F4 is sharp and very crisp. Lens choice really depends on your needs.
 
Thank you for the post. Nice photos.
 
valenterio said:
I owned the 16-35 F4 and thought it was merely acceptable - not great. A friend has the 16-35GM and it's an amazing lens...tack sharp. However, for my needs I frequently require wider than 16mm so I am currently using the 12-24G. When I first started using it I got carried away with going too wide in some instances. It was disastrous. I've learned to control myself and now shoot mostly 16 and above. But those few times when I need ultra wide for exterior buildings it's a gem. I shoot architectural. I previously had a Batis 18mm 2.8. Lovely lens but not wide enough when I needed wide. I thought I would miss having 2.8 for night/twilight shoots but the 12-24 at F4 is sharp and very crisp. Lens choice really depends on your needs.

--
valente
Click to expand...
Yes FE 12-24 is an excellent lens on its own and you can find overwhelming praises. You cannot go wrong by choose either of three lenses in the subject title based on your priority, and I gave my priority in one of my above post - F2.8, sharpness, FL range and still can use current 100x100mm filter system (last but not least, a big deal actually).

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4303538

In this Canon Lens thread. I gave the reason why I also keep Canon 17L TS-E. If 12mm after vertical perspective fix can completely replace 17mm after full 12mm shift, then I would be very happy to get this FE 12-24G which is lighter/smaller, AF and seems also a bit sharper. But 12mm after vertical converging fix just doesn't have the similar perspective look as from 17L TS-E shifted that latter bring the subject closer, amplified bigger. One big advantage is that in crowded space (in city for example) you actually can stand in front of crowds to frame the buildings/architectures without or much less including many heads/bodies into your pictures. For example all others were behind me and will include many people (includes my back) and vehicles in their photos that I am sure about.

hand-held in very crowded space in the Christmas season at Rockefeller Center, no further fixed in software

hand-held in very crowded space in the Christmas season at Rockefeller Center, no further fixed in software

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top