16-35 f4 vs 16-35 2.8 iii?

[mmemike]

among other debates i am having; i am curious if anyone has switched from the f4 to the 2.8 iii? the f4 is raved about on this and other forums!! i have the 24-70ii but having shot (on the 5d4) entirely since i picked it up i am shooting (mostly portraits and landscapes) almost entirely at the 24 or 70 range. this is making me think about either (a) the 24mm canon and 70-200ii or the 16-35 and the 70-200..

 

[Graham Meale]

Both are excellent lenses. I chose the f/4 because it's smaller, lighter, cheaper and has IS. Probably the only advantage of the f/2.8 is it's a little faster.

--
www.grahammeale.info

 

[Adam2]

Both are excellent lenses. I chose the f/4 because it's smaller, lighter, cheaper and has IS. Probably the only advantage of the f/2.8 is it's a little faster.

 

[ed rader]

optically these are the two best UW zooms made, but at the price the f4 is a steal. I have had the f4 IS since its release and it's just fantastic. I don't miss f2.8 but I believe I would miss IS, which is fantastic for handheld landscapes.

if I didn't already have the 14 f2.8 II I might upgrade and use the new zoom for astro work.

--
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/edraderphotography/

 

[dboreham]

Another vote for the f4.

My reasoning is that f2.8 is seldom required for wide angle shots and when I do need to work in low light I may as well use a prime and get another 1 or 2 stops speed advantage vs the f2.8 zoom.

 

[mmemike]

optically these are the two best UW zooms made, but at the price the f4 is a steal. I have had the f4 IS since its release and it's just fantastic. I don't miss f2.8 but I believe I would miss IS, which is fantastic for handheld landscapes.

if I didn't already have the 14 f2.8 II I might upgrade and use the new zoom for astro work.

 

[ed rader]

my three main lenses are 16-35L f4, 24-70L II and 70-300L. and I do recommend you consider 70-300 over 70-200 on FF unless you need f2.8

 

[mmemike]

my three main lenses are 16-35L f4, 24-70L II and 70-300L. and I do recommend you consider 70-300 over 70-200 on FF unless you need f2.8

 

[BirdShooter7]

I'm also considering the canon 16-35mn f/4L IS. I would typically be shooting outdoors and don't think I would really need the f/2.8 aperture. Im curious if there are any other options worth checking out?

 

[ed rader]

none I would consider other than the 16-35L III. this f4 has the best IQ, 4-stop IS, is reasonably priced and accepts a regular filter holder.

 

[mmemike]

none I would consider other than the 16-35L III. this f4 has the best IQ, 4-stop IS, is reasonably priced and accepts a regular filter holder.

 

[dave_bass5]

among other debates i am having; i am curious if anyone has switched from the f4 to the 2.8 iii? the f4 is raved about on this and other forums!! i have the 24-70ii but having shot (on the 5d4) entirely since i picked it up i am shooting (mostly portraits and landscapes) almost entirely at the 24 or 70 range. this is making me think about either (a) the 24mm canon and 70-200ii or the 16-35 and the 70-200..

ive had the 24-70 f/2.8 mkii since it came out, and earlier this year i got the 16-35 f/4L. Believe me there is no lose of IQ between the two, and images taken with the 16-35 have a very organic look (to my eyes).

Ive never tired the f/2.8 versions, but i prefer to have 4 stops of IS over one stop extra light as i really only hand hold most of the time.

 

[Sr1racha]

Highly recommend the 16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4 L IS. They are two of my sharpest lenses, and I love that they are relatively light

 

[dave_bass5]

Highly recommend the 16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4 L IS. They are two of my sharpest lenses, and I love that they are relatively light

 

[JerryriggedTECH]

optically these are the two best UW zooms made, but at the price the f4 is a steal. I have had the f4 IS since its release and it's just fantastic. I don't miss f2.8 but I believe I would miss IS, which is fantastic for handheld landscapes.

if I didn't already have the 14 f2.8 II I might upgrade and use the new zoom for astro work.

 

[Rodger in Edmonton]

I love the 16 - 35 F4 , it is very sharp, even hand held.













--
Rodger in Edmonton
Quaecumque vera
Tempus fugit
Nemo iudex in re sua

 

[mbtan]

Depends on what you're going to use it for.

Shooting still objects (e.g. interiors)? f4 L IS for sure

Shooting events or moving people? you'll want the 2.8 easily

Low light doesn't automatically go to the 2.8 too... still depends if you're going to be shooting still objects or not since the f4L has IS.

 

[Sr1racha]

I'd say the 16-35 f4 does quite well shooting people











--
sungparkphotography.com

 

[mmemike]

optically these are the two best UW zooms made, but at the price the f4 is a steal. I have had the f4 IS since its release and it's just fantastic. I don't miss f2.8 but I believe I would miss IS, which is fantastic for handheld landscapes.

if I didn't already have the 14 f2.8 II I might upgrade and use the new zoom for astro work.

 

[mbtan]

I think that would totally depend on what you want to shoot!