Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2015 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS

  
 
mohamed alfari
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


I am planning to buy wide angle lens, mostly for travel. the 11-24 mm is more interesting for sure but the weight, especially for small hikes (of course with other gear) is what concern me, plus the price is almost double the other one. what makes the 16-35mm appealing is the opposite weight, and price much cheaper but also the IS which will come handy because I am going to shoot in a rainforest on my next trip.
also I have very little experience with ultra wide angle, do you think it will be more of specialised lens than 16-35mm one.
so my question if money wasn't a problem, which one would you buy for travel.



Feb 06, 2015 at 01:32 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


16-35/4

11-24 is BIG very very BIG. cant take normal filters (though you can use gel filters. No IS, and 11mm is very very wide, will take a special kind of shot to use it.

With the 16-35 you can stitch for that width unless you have a lot of movement, and you can use 35mm for nice pano stitches.

This is a 16-35 pano, portrait, shot on tripod though
Second Time Lucky by robjdickinson, on Flickr



Feb 06, 2015 at 01:42 AM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


Great shot Rob. Lovely colors.

An alternative is the lighter TS-E 17mm f/4 and the 1.4x extender.

You get 10mm when shifting the camera is landscape orientation (2 shots needed) and 24mm when adding the extender. So easily going from 10-24mm. The benefit is having camera movements for landscape photography.. Lee makes an adapter filter making it possible to use regular 4x4 filters on it.

Here is a sample at 10mm:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1089677
Fred



Feb 06, 2015 at 01:52 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


Thanks Fred

17tse is an interesting option but best used with a tripod - and no IS



Feb 06, 2015 at 01:54 AM
mohamed alfari
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


Thank you Fred & RobDickinson, both stunning shot. RobDickinson you made it look scary big that I made the decision now to buy 16-35mm , simple filter especially in travel is better and IS. I think 11-24 is great lens for serious landscape guys. me I am more of travel photographer.
btw you are lucky to live in New Zealand on my list to visit but kinda far from UAE.



Feb 06, 2015 at 02:08 AM
burningheart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


I agree with Rob, given the choice between the two lens you would likely find more uses for a 16-35 over the 11-24. The main advantage of the 11-24 vs 16-35 is you get the 11-16 focal length but at that point you are getting into ultra wide shooting. As Rob pointed out 11 is super wide and there are less opportunites at that focal length. I don't have the Canon 16-35 instead the 17-40 and it is nice having the flexibility to go past 24mm.

I also have the Nikon 14-24 and when travelling I am often changing the lens as 24 is often too wide.



Feb 06, 2015 at 02:18 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


Thanks Mohamed. I am not lucky to live in NZ, its no accident I live here!


Feb 06, 2015 at 02:32 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


Another vote for Rob's take.

Honestly, I don't see the 11-24 as "a great lens for serious landscape guys" at all. It's a great lens for very specific types of shots-- often not landscape. Wider ≠ better for landscapes in my opinion. The wider you get the more specialist you get. On a strictly landscape basis I'd take 28-35mm over <20mm any day. You get too wide and everything besides the foreground loses power.

That's not to say you can't get a great landscape shot at 12, 14, or 17mm. I have some I've made. But these focal lengths on FF make up only a fraction of the landscape shots I prefer.

TL;DR -- I think the 16-35L is definitely the way to go for your shooting.



Feb 06, 2015 at 03:00 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


Oh, and that is a lovely shot Rob.


Feb 06, 2015 at 03:01 AM
alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


I am very curious to see how low the distortion is with the 11-24. They make a point about it in the press release.


Feb 06, 2015 at 03:23 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


I you get close to something it will distort to the corners but it might be very rectilinear. hell there isnt much to compare it too. 11mm is a lot wider than 12.

justruss thanks!



Feb 06, 2015 at 03:29 AM
sdeutscher
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


From my point of view the 11-24mm would be a great lens for events and journalism. Personally I use the Tokina 16-28mm for landscape and the Sigma 12-24 for events and journalism which can bring diversity to my shots and offer sometimes a interesting angle and a different view compared with the regular photos I take. Just to make it more clear, it is not a main event lens, just an addition for let's say 3-5% of the shots at most.


Feb 06, 2015 at 03:50 AM
gocolts
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


My 16-35L gave me awesome results as my main lens in Maui last year, did all the family group photo shots over Christmas, and will be my primary walk-around lens for a family vacation in Disney World next week.

Between size, weight, and focal length, I don't see the 11-24L filling all those needs for me, and I can't justify both the 16-35 & 11-24 in my kit, so I think I'm going to pass. If I really want wide, I have a 8-15L that is fun to use.



Feb 06, 2015 at 08:32 AM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


mohamed alfari wrote:
I am planning to buy wide angle lens, mostly for travel. the 11-24 mm is more interesting for sure but the weight, especially for small hikes (of course with other gear) is what concern me, plus the price is almost double the other one. what makes the 16-35mm appealing is the opposite weight, and price much cheaper but also the IS which will come handy because I am going to shoot in a rainforest on my next trip.
also I have very little experience with ultra wide angle, do you think it will be more of specialised lens than 16-35mm
...Show more

Honestly the only real use I see the new 11-24mm excelling at is to photograph cramped interiors: Boats/Yachts , RV's, Cars/Vehicles and some Architecture. For that the new lens looks like a MUST, albeit a bit too expensive. So if you make money doing that type of photography then the lens is worth a serious consideration. If not, I would suggest a pass.

I would NOT carry around a lens like that for landscape. No way. Too hard to impossible to filter, huge and heavy. No thanks, for landscape.




Feb 06, 2015 at 08:40 AM
MalachiConstant
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


Just bought a 16-35 F4/L IS for travel and got to use it on a trip to Mexico. It will also be used on my canoe camping trips in the boundary waters (Extreme lightweight camping).

I have loved it so far. The IS has made it usable at 1/4 and even 1/2 second exposures handheld at night, and I even used it for some on the spot video stuff on my last trip, it worked great.

I'd highly recommend! I have also used Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and Canon 16-35 f/2.8 and this blows both out of the water. Unless you NEED the 11mm and are willing to forego the use of normal filters, just get the 16-35 and don't look back



Feb 06, 2015 at 10:39 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


If you shoot scenes around Zion, 11 is going to be great. I have a 14 a 16x35 and a 17TSE. I have a place in Kolab Canyon that can't be shot with the 17TSE shifted.

Anytime you are in a deep narrow canyon shooting from the bottom, its very difficult to get the entire height. I had a Ziess 15 which I returned for this reason because the required upward tilt cause ugly distortion.

To date, the 17TSE shifted has been the best solution. But an 11mm would allow a level camera which probably gets too much foreground, but with a 50mp camera lots of possibility for crop. And focusing a TSE lens is not always successful.

As far as filters, I have an adaptor and full set of Lee filters for my 17TSE. I never use them. I shoot brackets and blend for cleaner transitions than you get from ND grads. And no color casts.

Oh yes, my 16-24 is my most used lens, but is often not wide enough. My 24-70 is my sharpest zoom, but I shoot mostly in the 24 or lower range.



Feb 06, 2015 at 10:56 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


mohamed alfari wrote:
I am planning to buy wide angle lens, mostly for travel. the 11-24 mm is more interesting for sure but the weight, especially for small hikes (of course with other gear) is what concern me, plus the price is almost double the other one. what makes the 16-35mm appealing is the opposite weight, and price much cheaper but also the IS which will come handy because I am going to shoot in a rainforest on my next trip.
also I have very little experience with ultra wide angle, do you think it will be more of specialised lens than 16-35mm
...Show more

On some of the specifics (price, bulk, weight) you seem to have done your research. Your question is perhaps more about the usefulness of such lenses. This is a fairly subjective thing, based on individual shooting preferences and how one balances things like cost, weight/bulk, frequency of need, and so forth.

If you have not used ultra-wide zooms, the first question you need to sort out is whether you need the extraordinarily wide angle coverage of 11mm on (I presume) full frame. While acknowledging that everyone's experience is different, mine is that I rarely need wider than 24mm, and that 16mm is quite wide enough for virtually everything I shoot. If you are going back and forth between the two lenses without experience that can help you decide, I'd recommend the 16-35 as a starting point, knowing that most people (by a large margin) will be quite happy with its coverage — and you'll be happier with its smaller size/weight for travel.

Dan



Feb 06, 2015 at 11:24 AM
NCAndy
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 11-24mm f/4L vs 16-35mm f/4L IS


ben egbert wrote:
If you shoot scenes around Zion, 11 is going to be great. I have a 14 a 16x35 and a 17TSE. I have a place in Kolab Canyon that can't be shot with the 17TSE shifted.

Anytime you are in a deep narrow canyon shooting from the bottom, its very difficult to get the entire height. I had a Ziess 15 which I returned for this reason because the required upward tilt cause ugly distortion.

To date, the 17TSE shifted has been the best solution. But an 11mm would allow a level camera which probably gets too much foreground, but
...Show more

I've had the same experience with the 16-35 down in the Grand Canyon. I'm thinking the 11-24 will allow for some very unique perspectives while down in the river corridor.



Feb 06, 2015 at 12:25 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.