DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II vs. f/4L IS

Started Sep 29, 2020 | Discussions thread
BlueRay2 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,816
Re: EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II vs. f/4L IS

Graham Meale wrote:

61094125 wrote:

Hello,

I´m selling my EF 100mm f/2.8L macro lens with optional exchange for some wide angle lens. I was thinking about EF 16-35/4 IS but now I got offer for EF 16-35/2.8L II.

What do you think? I don´t need f/2.8 and from what I have seen the IQ is not so different.

Thanks for help

If you don't need f/2.8, then get the f/4. That was easy.

The f/4 is cheaper, lighter, smaller, has IS, and has stellar image quality.

+1

yeah, that is what i would do! 16-35mm is a bit too wide for me, 24mm is wide enough for me, that is the reason why i haven't acquired one, yet. but the owners of the canon 16-35 f4.0 IS rave about it and i have seen some superb shots taken with it. the f2.8 III is very good but not better than the f4.0, except it offers one click faster aperture and higher price! good luck.

-- hide signature --

if you look at God real close and for very long, you'll find defects!!!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow