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

Hi everyone,

I recently moved to FF and have always been a fan of ultra wide angle to capture landscapes, when I was on D5100 and Tokina 11-20 F2.8 - though i'm just a photographer who loves to capture while traveling. Please note my current set up

• Canon 6D mark II
• Canon 24-70 F2.8 L II

Although everyone on DP review recommended as one-stop lens as 24-70 F2.8, my itch to get ultra wide angle has not stopped. My primary usage would be following:

• Astrophotography
• Landscapes while traveling - with and without tripod

I have cornered down on the following options

Option 1

• Canon 16-35 F4 L IS
• Rokinon 14mm F2.8

I will use the Rokinon primarily for only astrophotography, while use Canon for landscapes and all other use-cases.

Option 2

• Canon 16-35 F2.8 L II

Priced similar as option 1, I get a single-lens solution, but this lens has got some critical review since III version came, but third version is LOT expensive too. I am confused if this is good or better than Option 1, then I can simply get this lens for both astro and landscape usage.

Option 3

• Canon 16-35 F2.8 L III

Yes, this is the best for both, but lot more expensive as well. But is it really worth the price jump or I should stick to Option 1 or 2?

Looking forward to expertise of experts on this group.

Appreciate the support.

Canon's 16-35 f/2.8L II does not compare favorably to the new f/2.8 III or the f/4L IS. While the center sharpness if fine, the critical edges and corners would be a mess when shooting stars wide open.

The 16-35 f/4L IS is the gold standard for full frame landscape photographers, but the f/2.8 III is supposed to be even a hair sharper, but with the loss of that useful IS. The f/4L is rarely used for stars and aurora shooting while the f/2.8 would be more practical.

The Rokinon 14mm F2.8 seems to be pretty popular and affordable for that sort of thing, but you lose the zooming ability. Personally, with your requirements, I would get the 16-35 f/2.8L III, but your wallet may be the determining factor.

hotdog321 wrote:

Canon's 16-35 f/2.8L II does not compare favorably to the new f/2.8 III or the f/4L IS. While the center sharpness if fine, the critical edges and corners would be a mess when shooting stars wide open.

The 16-35 f/4L IS is the gold standard for full frame landscape photographers, but the f/2.8 III is supposed to be even a hair sharper, but with the loss of that useful IS. The f/4L is rarely used for stars and aurora shooting while the f/2.8 would be more practical.

The Rokinon 14mm F2.8 seems to be pretty popular and affordable for that sort of thing, but you lose the zooming ability. Personally, with your requirements, I would get the 16-35 f/2.8L III, but your wallet may be the determining factor.

+1

The 16-35 f/4L is a spectacular lens.  I'd find it hard for any lens to be much better.  The only reason to pay more is for a faster aperture.  Is f2.8 worth double the price for your requirements?  That is the only question that needs answered IMHO.

If you can afford it and don't mind the extra size/weight, the f2.8 III is as good as UWA zooms get.  As for me, I'm thrilled with the f/4 IS and won't even be thinking about replacing any time soon.  But...I'm not an astro shooter.

owned all except for 16-35 III.

Option 4 is the tamron 15-30 VR 2.8, or the new upcoming sigma 14-24 2.8.  Downside is both are bigger and heavier and dont take filter well, if thats something you like using.  but othewise may fit your bill better.

the rokinon 14 is ok.  It was a real bargain and great, when canon lacked any ultrawide great options (I was using an adapted nikon 14-24 at the time).  I am not so sure anymore, and you have to carry an extra lens.

Selene wrote:

I haven't used the 16-35 2.8 II, but I have used the other 3 lenses and seen pictures from the 2.8 II. The 2.8 II maybe made sense when it first came out, but it is more expensive for a much reduced image quality than you can get from the 16-35 F4.

The F4 version is an amazing lens and is really terrific as a traveling lens for the 6D. It is a good light weight combo that allows you to take great pictures in a variety of lighting conditions, including dark European churches (which do have some light through stain glassed windows).

The one thing it isn't good for is astrophotography. You really need a lens that is F 2.8 or faster. The 2.8 III version is excellent for astrophotography and every bit as good if not better than the F4 version, but it is heavier and more expensive. If you will be doing Astrophotography on a regular basis, it is probably your best choice.

People say the Rokinon is great if you get a good copy. I didn't. It was by far the worst lens I have ever owned. I have yet to see one that has satisfactory image quality, though they must exist as many people swear by them.

The 16-35 F4 version is a really super lens. It might be worth thinking about where you live and what kind of astrophotography you will be doing. The f4 is fine for night photography, but not really good enough for milky way shots in dark skies.

Thanks Selene for a very elaborate response.

I am sure III version is the best but the really high price and my limited usage doesn't really warrant a purchase of such a lens.

To answer a part of your question, I will NOT be doing astro-photography regularly but probably couple of times in the entire year. I live in Singapore so I get to click astro shots only when I'm traveling and which is not so often than normal.

My key dilemma was having two lens combo 16-35 f4 and Rokinon 14 f2.8 OR 16-15 F2.8 II. Because the later will provide a single-lens solution, and is priced similar to the prior mentioned combination.

spyder0109 wrote:

Selene wrote:

I haven't used the 16-35 2.8 II, but I have used the other 3 lenses and seen pictures from the 2.8 II. The 2.8 II maybe made sense when it first came out, but it is more expensive for a much reduced image quality than you can get from the 16-35 F4.

The F4 version is an amazing lens and is really terrific as a traveling lens for the 6D. It is a good light weight combo that allows you to take great pictures in a variety of lighting conditions, including dark European churches (which do have some light through stain glassed windows).

The one thing it isn't good for is astrophotography. You really need a lens that is F 2.8 or faster. The 2.8 III version is excellent for astrophotography and every bit as good if not better than the F4 version, but it is heavier and more expensive. If you will be doing Astrophotography on a regular basis, it is probably your best choice.

People say the Rokinon is great if you get a good copy. I didn't. It was by far the worst lens I have ever owned. I have yet to see one that has satisfactory image quality, though they must exist as many people swear by them.

The 16-35 F4 version is a really super lens. It might be worth thinking about where you live and what kind of astrophotography you will be doing. The f4 is fine for night photography, but not really good enough for milky way shots in dark skies.

Thanks Selene for a very elaborate response.

I am sure III version is the best but the really high price and my limited usage doesn't really warrant a purchase of such a lens.

To answer a part of your question, I will NOT be doing astro-photography regularly but probably couple of times in the entire year. I live in Singapore so I get to click astro shots only when I'm traveling and which is not so often than normal.

My key dilemma was having two lens combo 16-35 f4 and Rokinon 14 f2.8 OR 16-15 F2.8 II. Because the later will provide a single-lens solution, and is priced similar to the prior mentioned combination.

For a 1-lens solution I would consider the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 VC or the new Sigma Art 14-24 2.8 a better option as opposed to the Canon 16-35 2.8 iii.

For a 2-lens solution, your best bet would be the Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS and either the Sigma Art 14mm f/1.8 or the new Samyamg XP 14mm 2.4 or the old Samyang 14mm 2.8.

As you seem to suggest a less than occasional astro shooter, the old Samyang seems the appropriate choice. You may upgrade in the future if your interest in astro increases. This solution will also allow you to easily use filters which would be cumbersome with the 1-lens solutions above due to the bulbous front elements.

spyder0109 wrote:

Hi everyone,

I recently moved to FF and have always been a fan of ultra wide angle to capture landscapes, when I was on D5100 and Tokina 11-20 F2.8 - though i'm just a photographer who loves to capture while traveling. Please note my current set up

• Canon 6D mark II
• Canon 24-70 F2.8 L II

Although everyone on DP review recommended as one-stop lens as 24-70 F2.8, my itch to get ultra wide angle has not stopped. My primary usage would be following:

• Astrophotography
• Landscapes while traveling - with and without tripod

I have cornered down on the following options

Option 1

• Canon 16-35 F4 L IS
• Rokinon 14mm F2.8

I will use the Rokinon primarily for only astrophotography, while use Canon for landscapes and all other use-cases.

Option 2

• Canon 16-35 F2.8 L II

Priced similar as option 1, I get a single-lens solution, but this lens has got some critical review since III version came, but third version is LOT expensive too. I am confused if this is good or better than Option 1, then I can simply get this lens for both astro and landscape usage.

Option 3

• Canon 16-35 F2.8 L III

Yes, this is the best for both, but lot more expensive as well. But is it really worth the price jump or I should stick to Option 1 or 2?

Looking forward to expertise of experts on this group.

Appreciate the support.

Dw bro, the run down is like this. The 16-35mm f/2.8 ii is not as sharp in the corners as the 16-35mm iii or f/4. F/2.8 will not matter for any of your specific shooting situations but astrophotography. So, having one lens just for astrophotography and another for all your WA stuffs is no big deal. I have also owned that lens and used it for astro. It is good, but hard to resell. Option 1 if buying used is about $500-600 cheaper than option 3 and is where I would probably choose.

Selene wrote:

Hi there, I think your logic is correct and that you have answered your own question. I think the 16-35 F4 and Samyang/Rokinon 14 2.8 makes sense for you.

Agree. the 14mm rakinon is better in terms of CA that any of the above zooms - and we own or have owned all the lenses discussed here. For dealing with pinponits of light in the starry sky, the spherical 14mm wins hands down. (better our canon 14/2.8 that cost us triple the shekels!) The 16-35 f4 is an astounding piece of kit, and is my hand held preference (where light and lack of subject motion permits) over the 16-35 MkIII. Four stops of IS saves a awful lot of messing about with tripods etc in the field.

Option 1 is my current set up I absolutely love the 16-35f/4 and use my Samyang  14 f/2.8 for Astro work for the price it is a very nice lens.

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.

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)

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

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

spyder0109 wrote:

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

OK update time. I may have been premature in my judgement of the Irix 15mm and given you a bum steer. It helps to get some real data and do more extensive testing.

I did more testing today, with somewhat different results. I went to a local camera shop and tried the following lenses in a non-scientific test where I fitted the lenses to my own 6D ii and stood outside the door and took photos at all apertures of the scene across a busy 6 lane road with shops, street signs etc across the road. It was mostly sunny weather so shutter speeds were generally 1/1250th or higher at larger apertures. All shot in RAW.

I have to admit that based on the few snaps I had taken earlier this week in my street I had almost written off my Irix 15mm Firefly, and had already primed the seller for a return.

Irix 15mm Firefly (mine)

Irix 15mm Blackstone

Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED (old one). Nikon mount so I borrowed their D750.

Samyang 14mm f2.8 AF

Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP Premium

Sigma 14 f1.8 Art

And I also shot the same scene using my M5 + 11-22mm EFM at 11mm, which is 17.6mm FF equivalent.

The results for sharpness only (looking at parts of the scene at 200% of the unprocessed RAW images on my 27" Dell Ultrasharp monitor). From best to worst for a centre-biased view but also considering edges. I looked at f2.8 and f4 mostly as all lenses had f4, and all but my 11-22mm had f2.8.

Irix 15mm Firefly - BIG suprise !

Sigma 14mm f1.8 - surprised it wasn't better in outright sharpness. Good contrast, colours & minimal vignetting etc. A nice lens, although it is a big heavy beast. The first series of pics I took (using AF) were all out of focus, so I switched it off and on again, and it worked OK after that. May be a Sigma - 6D ii issue ?

Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP - actually a nice lens. Significantly better than the basic old 14mm f2.8 ED, although double the price.

Canon 11-22mm f4 - obviously taken with the M5, not 6D ii

Irix 15mm Blackstone - it didn't seem as crisp as mine

Samyang 14mm AF - average - at first the AF didn't work, so I switched it off and on again to get it to work.

Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED - this is the older (original ?) Samyang/Rokinon. I had to use the Nikon D750 with my card in it, and since I don't know Nikon it almost certainly wasn't setup to my liking. The Nikon version of the lens does operate with the cameras aperture control (when set to f22 on the lens) whereas the EF mount version needs manual on-lens control. It was awful - not in the slightest bit sharp - dramatically worse than the next worse in my opinion. I really wouldn't recommend this based on what I saw, but I have to say that I was comparing it using a different and unfamiliar camera although that shouldn't affect sharpness.

The vignetting on the Irix is probably the worst wide open, with the Sigma the best, and the corner sharpness on the Sigma was probably the best. The price order is interesting too, from cheapest (in Australian $), Canon 11-22mm ($423), Samyang f2.8 ED ($529), Irix 15mm Firefly ($740), Irix 15mm Blackstone ($989), Samyang 14mm f2.8 AF ($1079), and then a decent jump to Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP (at $1248 about 70% more than the Firefly), and then a large jump to Sigma 14mm f1.8 (at $1798 the Sigma is almost 2.5x the price of the Firefly).

So, I am now in a much better frame of mind regarding the Irix 15mm Firefly and I am quite optimistic that it will perform well, and am looking forward to taking some real world photos with it. I will not be returning it.

There really wasn't much between the Firefly, Samyang 14mm XP, Sigma 14mm and Blackstone in sharpness, and it took some pixel peeping at 200% to pick them. I think that if money was no object, I would buy (in order of preference) Sigma 14mm f1.8, Samyang 14mm XP, Irix Blackstone, and then Irix Firefly, but when considering value for money, I do think that the Firefly probably has the others beat, although there is going to be a bit more PP to correct vignetting. The infinity notch/click (and focus locking ring) of the Irix lenses is a very useful feature that none of the others have which would make it useful for astro.

I would still suggest a quick brick wall test to check for decentering for the Irix 15mm (and probably any Samyang) because my first copy of the Firefly was quite obviously defective, but I am now much happier to recommend the Irix 15mm.

Colin

spyder0109 wrote:

Hi everyone,

I recently moved to FF and have always been a fan of ultra wide angle to capture landscapes, when I was on D5100 and Tokina 11-20 F2.8 - though i'm just a photographer who loves to capture while traveling. Please note my current set up

• Canon 6D mark II
• Canon 24-70 F2.8 L II

Although everyone on DP review recommended as one-stop lens as 24-70 F2.8, my itch to get ultra wide angle has not stopped. My primary usage would be following:

• Astrophotography
• Landscapes while traveling - with and without tripod

I have cornered down on the following options

Option 1

• Canon 16-35 F4 L IS
• Rokinon 14mm F2.8

I will use the Rokinon primarily for only astrophotography, while use Canon for landscapes and all other use-cases.

Option 2

• Canon 16-35 F2.8 L II

Priced similar as option 1, I get a single-lens solution, but this lens has got some critical review since III version came, but third version is LOT expensive too. I am confused if this is good or better than Option 1, then I can simply get this lens for both astro and landscape usage.

Option 3

• Canon 16-35 F2.8 L III

Yes, this is the best for both, but lot more expensive as well. But is it really worth the price jump or I should stick to Option 1 or 2?

Looking forward to expertise of experts on this group.

Appreciate the support.

there are many options for astrophotography for Canon users... but resuming different sources it seems the best overall lens (considering costs quality coma focal range CA ...)

it's the Tamron 15-30 2.8

here the sources:

check at min. 5:26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlL14iQNm4U

https://www.lonelyspeck.com/lonely-specks-ultimate-list-of-best-astrophotography-lenses/

do you agree? can you confirm?

I'm using the Canon 16-35mm f/4 with Sigma MC-11 on my Sony A7RIII and I've used a Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4 (which is slightly more expensive) and the Canon lens is much better in all respects. I love my Canon 16-35 f/4 !