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

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

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.

I really like 100 f2.8L lens, and last week I rented 16-35L but realized I don't really need that wide of the lens and it's not small either.

Personally one isn't really a replacement for the other, are they are two different lenses. I am keeping my 100mm, and buying a 24mm prime .

I definitely agree that 16-35 can´t be replacement of 100mm macro. I have covered these focal length with different lens and I´m not using macro that much... And I feel I need sometimes seomething wider then 24 mm what I have...

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

I bought one of the first 16-35 f/4L IS when it hit the market. As a photojournalist I was heavily using the 16-35 f/2.8, so I carefully compared the two lenses shooting at f/4.

The center sharpness is nearly identical, but there is no comparison on the corner and edge sharpness. The 16-35 f/4L IS simply blows the 16-35 f/2.8L II out of the water. It is far, far sharper with less flare on the corners and edges and a far more usable lens.

I was also surprised at how useful the IS function is on the 16-35 f/4L IS. I mean, it's wide angle, right? But the IS was a valuable addition.

While the newest 16-35 f/2.8L III is even better, I have no plans to sell my 16-35 f/4L IS. It is one of those rare lenses that just about everyone loves.

Thank you for feedback.
BTW: What times are you able to shoot handheld with IS? I know it depends on each person, but I'm just curious.

Thanks

61094125 wrote:

Thank you for feedback.
BTW: What times are you able to shoot handheld with IS? I know it depends on each person, but I'm just curious.

Thanks

Personally, I found it surprisingly useful when shooting indoors under cruddy light--shooting a conference or gala, in a scientific lab at Rice U, at the local 911 call center, quick "down and dirty" architectural shots indoors without a tripod--all kinds of oddball situations.

Many "normal" photographers love it for landscape photography. They can leave their tripod at home.

The 16-35 f/4 L IS is one of Canon’s best lenses. And the price makes it a steal. 
I use the IS function bracketing images Hand Held in dark Cathedrals, where tripods are prohibited in Europe and it amazes me still five years later.

1/2 a second is quite possible with the IS

exactly.  I owned the f4 IS.  sold it and bought the f2.8 II because I also shoot astro.  the f2.8 is wicked sharp even wide open but the vignetting is significant and not correctable -- plus the lens is larger than my 24-70L II.

I always regretting selling the F4 IS because it's a fantastic lens and it has IS for when I need to  do handheld landscapes.

so I bought a dedicated astro lens sold the f2.8 and repurchased the f4 IS which is a gem and a fantastic bargain.

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.

The f4 is a fantastic lens and I love mine. The f2.8 II was quite a bit more in cost AND weight if either of those are considerations.

61094125 wrote:

I was thinking about EF 16-35/4 IS but now I got offer for EF 16-35/2.8L II.

Avoid all versions of the EF 16-35/2.8! They are much worse than the 4.0 IS when it comes to sharpness and IQ.