16-35 4L IS vs 16-35 2.8L II?

Everything I've read so far says that the 4L is sharper - both at bigger apertures and in the corners.

1. Which one is sharper at f 8,11,16?

2. Excuse the amateur question, but what reasons could possibly make me want the 2.8L II over the 4L?

My primary intention here is landscapes. Astro isn't of any concern.

Thank you.

For landscapes - no reason - you do not need f2.8..

I have the f4L and think it's fabulous. Have never used the 2.8 but all comments I've seen say f4 better unless you really need f2.8....

ahnafakeef298 wrote:

Everything I've read so far says that the 4L is sharper - both at bigger apertures and in the corners.

1. Which one is sharper at f 8,11,16?

2. Excuse the amateur question, but what reasons could possibly make me want the 2.8L II over the 4L?

My primary intention here is landscapes. Astro isn't of any concern.

Thank you.

I've sold my 2.8 for the 4.0 IS a while ago and am super happy with the switch.

The main difference even at smaller apertures  (f8+) is corner sharpness, corner sharpness, corner sharpness...

arty H wrote:

I use the 17-40L, so my comments should be taken with a grain of salt. If I didn't like my lens so much, I would be looking at the 16-35F4IS. All reviews have it as an excellent lens. The only reason to get the F2.8 lens would be for shooting events using an ultrawide. The larger aperture would help keep shutter speeds high, and you need that for people photos. For anything else, the 16-35 F4 IS would be my choice. It has IS, and that can be handy in very low light, like the interiors of museums, cathedrals, and a variety of travel locations.

If I used the ultrawide more, I would be in the market for an upgrade to the 16-35F4 IS. As it is, I use the 17-40L for travel, or occasionally on a crop body.

Sorry Arty.

You may or may not want to hear this.

Your summation of the f/4 L IS is the exact reason I upgraded from the 17-40 f/4 L to the 16-35 f/4 L IS. A trip to Rome last summer was the exact reason I bought it.

"It has IS, can be handy in low light, like the interiors of museums, cathedrals, and a variety of travel locations"

Walking all day I'm the heat and not having enough water in your system leads to dehydration, which for me leads to the "Yips". Is not only assists in the reasons for IS, but delivers sharp images at 1/10" hand held as tripods are not permitted.

Needless to say I use the 16-35 f/4 L IS so much more than the 17-40 f/4 L. Since selling as used, the prices are low for the 17-40 f/4 L, I am keeping it as a great backup, which is more valuable to me than the cash currently.

ahnafakeef298 wrote:

Everything I've read so far says that the 4L is sharper - both at bigger apertures and in the corners.

1. Which one is sharper at f 8,11,16?

2. Excuse the amateur question, but what reasons could possibly make me want the 2.8L II over the 4L?

My primary intention here is landscapes. Astro isn't of any concern.

Thank you.

Very sensible question--I've heavily used both for years:

When stopped down to, say, f/8 the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 16-35 f/4L IS are about equally sharp. But at f/4, the edges and corners of the 16-35 f/2.8 is pretty awful and the f/4 IS version blows it out of the water. Center sharpness is about equal even at f/4, though.

Photographers bought the f/2.8 lens for years because they needed the f/2.8 speed. For instance, for photojournalism or night sky photography. But these days the f/4L IS is so superior that most opt to use it instead.

For your purposes the choice is crystal clear: buy the 16-35 f/4L IS.

The rumored 16-35 f/2.8L III is sure to be significantly more expensive and heavy in comparison to the 16-35 f/4L IS, though I'm sure Canon will make significant improvements in sharpness compared to the current f/2.8 versions.

You're going to love your new 16-35 f/4L IS. Post pics!

cpharm86 wrote:

hotdog321 wrote:

The rumored 16-35 f/2.8L III is sure to be significantly more expensive and heavy in comparison to the 16-35 f/4L IS, though I'm sure Canon will make significant improvements in sharpness compared to the current f/2.8 versions.

You're going to love your new 16-35 f/4L IS. Post pics!

Yes, the price will probably be a little south of your 11-24.

I've seen some nice stuff you posted with your 11-24. I considered it but it would not be that useful for me from the 11-15 mm focal range.

I'll plan on posting some pics on this thread next week when I return. I'll be using the 5Dmiii. I have the 1Dx ( the original- the obsolete one now!! just kidding!) but won't be taking it with me.

Thanks! The 11-24 f/4L is very unusual and most photographers really do not need or want that bad boy. The cost, weight and extreme wide angle makes it a real specialty item. Most would be much happier with the 16-35 f/4L IS.

For me, I still stand in slack-jawed amazement that such a critter was even possible. It's the first lens i grab when I have an architecture assignment.

The 16-35 f/2.8 III is supposed to be announced in like 2 weeks as well. So might want to wait if you are torn. But I'm all honesty if you are just doing landscape then the 16-35 f/4 is probably the better bet either way.

it's not sharp @ f2.8 but is soft in the corners at all apertures.

I have both and used them on assignments and stock photography, the f4 version is far better at the wider ends, no question about that. None is 100% perfect, no superwide ever is. You find that at. 16 mil focal range even the f4 version will give very slight CA at the corners.

However, the f4 have superb corner to corner sharpness at the widest ends, the f.2.8 dont.

Thank you for all your responses, everyone. I've ordered the f4L IS version.

This is going to be my first lens that allows anything that is wider than 24mm, so I'm pretty excited.

As for newer lenses coming out, it's alright really. If I really get into wide angle photography, I'll just hold out for the 11-24 Mark II, whenever that comes out.

ahnafakeef298 wrote:

Thank you for all your responses, everyone. I've ordered the f4L IS version.

This is going to be my first lens that allows anything that is wider than 24mm, so I'm pretty excited.

As for newer lenses coming out, it's alright really. If I really get into wide angle photography, I'll just hold out for the 11-24 Mark II, whenever that comes out.

I doubt we'll ever see an 11-24 f/4L II. Canon pretty much made a major breakthrough with this lens and I don't see how it can be realistically improved. It is just that good.