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 · UWA lens option?

  
 
Tareq
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · UWA lens option?


Hi again,

I finally sold my beloved lens which is Canon 16-35 2.8L mk1 after long time, my friend bought it from me with a very very nice price, and i waited really long to sell it to upgrade, so now i have one of the following options and i can't decide yet even some options are good to go:

1. Buy Canon 16-35 f4L IS [i always wish to have 2.8 because many keep saying that IS of this lens has grater stops, but greater stops don't eliminate or replace 2.8 when needed, also i don't need to us slower shutter always with IS as i may sometimes need to freeze motions when possible, and i think this is another story]

2. Buy Tamron SP 15-30, it is the only lens that i keep thinking always, because it has 2 things, 2.8 and VC which is similar to IS, the only cons or down of this lens from people are: weight, and no filter thread, and gonestly speaking both aren't issues with me, but i have to listen to people sometimes as they did things before me so they know more or better i think.

3. Buy Tamron now then later Canon 16-35 f4, or buy the Canon first then later the Tamron, in both cases i feel i will go with one more than the another most of the time but not sure which and i can't test or rent both before buying.

I mainly shoot landscapes, nightshots, cityscape and i really want to add astrography in my list too, and portraits are not much in equation but it is there when necessary.

The price i've got from selling my lens is almost same as the price of Canon 16-35 f4 and Tamron 15-30, i was thinking about Nikon 14-24 and Canon 16-35 f2.8 mkII also, but both are behind that Canon 16-35 f4 and Tamron 15-30 from many reviews, and both are pricey so i need to wait a bit and add little more, but i think i better focus on both of 1&2 point above.

Canon 11-24 is my last option but this is the price of 2 lenses above, so i took it of equation, i may buy it only next year when i can afford it and it may get cheaper by the time, but for now i am left with 2 lenses options, what do you think/suggest/recommend?



Nov 12, 2015 at 05:38 AM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · UWA lens option?


The *main* issue with the Tamron is the filter thing. That's a rough one to get over if it's something you would use regularly, but it's also as good as you're going to get for astro (being wide enough, fast enough, and having decent coma performance for stars).

Kind of a balance, really. For anything *but* astro, I'd be more inclined to get the Canon. As a bare lens, though, the Tamron gives nothing up, just more of a pain to use.



Nov 12, 2015 at 06:05 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · UWA lens option?


Hi Tareq,

I went from the 17-40/4L, to 16-35/2.8L, 16-35/2.8L II, and now the 16-35/4L IS. The 16-35/4L IS is the best of the bunch optically, and sometimes the IS is very useful when shooting handheld. I don't miss the extra aperture stop when going from f/2.8 to f/4, because the 1DX and 6D cameras that I most often use now have excellent high ISO performance, in comparison with previous cameras, and so I can easily compensate. For example, an image taken at f/4 and ISO 3200 on the 6D is "cleaner" than f/2.8 and ISO 1600 was on a 5DII. So if you have a contemporary DSLR, you shouldn't miss the f/2.8. OTOH, if you use an older DSLR, then you have to figure out how often you might need f/2.8 for the one stop increase in shutter speed, and that could be a factor in your decision between the 16-35/4L IS and SP 15-30/2.8 VC (which I haven't used).

Have you seen this recent thread?

Need wide Angle Options , https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1395144



Nov 12, 2015 at 06:05 AM
Tareq
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · UWA lens option?


Well, this is never gonna help me to decide anything, so let's talk about each point for better details and clarifications.

1. Filter issue? ok, i have Canon TS17 and also Samyang, and both you know needs that different than standard filter threads, so if i am fine with those then definitely i can be fine with any lens that has no filter threads, i already have the filters[6x6-6x8], so if i get that Tamron then i need only filter ring or adapter, the holder i will try with what i have already, if not then buy new one, there are so many filter holders cheap out there, so any another filter issue than those? please let me know

2. Weight, also not an issue, sometimes i feel keep complaining about things that making me to think about why then those brands making DSLRs or lenses that big, can't we all use 200gm lenses and 800gm cameras so we don't go much more than 1KG as total? is that photography fun? major keep ...... about weight of this and weight of that, when once i bought Canon 100 macro in the past in 2006 i thought it was so heavy, then bought 24-70 and i was laughing on 100, once i bought 70-200 i felt that 24-70 is a toy and nothing, but still people keep moaning about 24-70, 16-35, even 70-200 weight, in sports using 300 2.8 i 99% handholding it, i have a monopod but never felt comfortable using it and i've got more keepers shots handheld than using monopod, so Tamron 15-35 is a bit bulkier than say 16-35 or 17-40 or slightly more than 14-24 is also a joke for me.

3. Price, this is a main factor, for that i narrowed my choices to 16-35 f4 and Tamron 15-30, i can add Canon 16-35 2.8 mkII but this is almost outdated and less sharpness than Canon f4 and Tamron so it is also out, i can't afford 11-24 at the moment, and from some recent reviews it shows that Tamron has an edge winner over the legendary Nikon 14-24, and Nikon is also pricey, so that made it down to 16-35 f4 and Tamron one.

4. Now between the narrowed two, it comes the story or comparison of 2.8 vs. f4, both lenses has stabilizer though, so it also comes down to only f2.8 vs. F4. From another forums one member or 2 swear that although that f4 is way sharper than another lenses but it is not way way better than as they said Canon 16-35 f2.8II, now Tamron 15-35 is better optically than 16-35 f2.8II, so it means that quality of Tamron is almost near if not better or same to 16-35 f4, now, how much that f4 IS stops better than VC?

honestly speaking, i have some lenses with f2.8 and f4-f5.6 with and without IS, and with f2.8 lenses i never wish if i have IS, but with f4 and above lenses and IS i always wish if i have f2.8, not all my shots i want to go slower than 1/60, and from what i hear if i shoot stars or astro then f2.8 or wider is the way to go, actually i have a plan in the future to travel around and put astrography as my main subject to do beside landscapes, so it means i may look for f2.8 version.

I have Samyang 14, so this may keep me away of Tamron 15-30, but, if i love that Samyang 14 then it means i will like this Tamron more than Canon 16-35 f4IS, somehow i may have fun with f2.8 subjects more than IS just to have more steady less blur shots if i use slower speed, i really hate to use slower shutter speed handheld, if somehow i will go to 1/10 or a bit slower then i will stop shooting or use tripod as i will not enjoy that shot even i must shoot, if i shoot for others then they don't care how blurry it is, but most of my shots are for higher speed and lower ISO and i do have 1DX, so i tend to depend more on f2.8 than IS actually, even with my 70-200 which is f2.8 and IS i tend to use f2.8 more than its IS, but people here and there killing me about IS of 16-35 F4 as that much good than f2.8, now can that IS give same bokeh of 2.8 too?

The question is, how much i will miss f2.8 if i buy Canon 16-35 f4IS, and what i will miss if i buy Tamron? Really tough question, also i already mentioned that i may buy one lens and buy another later next year, but this maybe not a good idea, i never heard about how good IS is until this 70-200 mkII and this Canon 16-35 F4, in the past sounds IS wasn't good enough, now i really not sure if i have to change my mind about f2.8 vs. IS with current new technology.



Nov 12, 2015 at 07:34 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · UWA lens option?


Tareq wrote:
...From another forums one member or 2 swear that although that f4 is way sharper than another lenses but it is not way way better than as they said Canon 16-35 f2.8II, ...


The 16-35/4L IS has better IQ than the 16-35/2.8L II, not a lot better, and really only noticeable at the edges and corners. If you don't need "sharpest" corners, like for landscapes with full-frame content, then there's not much difference in IQ. They both have excellent IQ.

EF 16-35/4L IS test images https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1313373

Tareq wrote:
The question is, how much i will miss f2.8 if i buy Canon 16-35 f4IS, and what i will miss if i buy Tamron? ...


There's only one way to find out.



Nov 12, 2015 at 07:45 AM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · UWA lens option?


jcolwell wrote:
There's only one way to find out.


Agreed. The OP has all the relevant information!




Nov 12, 2015 at 08:46 AM
Zenon Char
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · UWA lens option?


I'm on the same hunt and thanks for the link. I'd kill for the Canon 11-24 but out of my range right now. My widest is 24mm on a FF (24-70 II). Going to Costa Rica and I'm having serious look at the Samyang 14mm.

I had a Tokina 11-16 which blew me away but I sold it when I went both crop and FF. The Tokina 11-20 is priced well. I'll have to scope out the specs and reviews. I don't really need 11mm. I'd be happy using it at 14mm or higher. I hate cloning out my feet



Nov 12, 2015 at 09:10 AM
Guest

Guest
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · UWA lens option?


I went from 16-35/2.8 L II to 16-35/4 L IS... actually, no, the 2.8 is still in my possession, but I have all the intention to sell it. I've found out that I just never used it at 2.8 unless in emergency, and emergency usually meant that the conditions were so bad that nothing decent came out of shooting at all, even at 2.8. The /4 IS just clicks along, and is amazing at f/4. For the really rough shoots I have a 24/1.4 II - that's not the way everyone would choose, but gets me covered pretty well. Even if I hadn't bought the 24/1.4, I would have probably switched to the 16-35/4 IS because, as others have pointed out, high ISO is decent to very good on today's cameras anyway. Fail that, the Tamron looks like a natural choice.


Nov 12, 2015 at 11:04 AM
Tareq
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · UWA lens option?


It is like choosing between 24-70 2.8 and 24-105 f4L IS, long debating, either go with any of both, or buying both, no final answer, sometimes 1 lens getting more whistles or votes but it doesn't finalize completely.

Each lens has pros and cons, and sometimes 1 pro feature which is important for someone is not a big matter/deal for another one.

I have 24-70 2.8 mk1 and i have 24-105L, honestly speaking, 24-70 is getting in use around 80% more than 24-105L, while others prefer that IS and little more reach, but still 24-70 is a first choice, i am not talking about 24-70 2.8 mkII, and there is also Canon 24-70 f4, from many posts that 24-70 2.8 mkII was a clear winner and choice, i even can't see anywhere some are using Canon 24-70 f4, but now this 16-35 f4L IS became a better and editors choice just because of its new IS technology and it is sharper in corners?



Nov 12, 2015 at 04:27 PM
Zenon Char
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · UWA lens option?


I'm taking a look at this one. Full corner to corner from abut 14-5 to 17mm. Might be fun to have a little for effects.

http://www.tokinalens.com/tokina/products/atx/atx107afdxnhfisheye/



Nov 13, 2015 at 01:16 PM
Dj R
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · UWA lens option?


how about the Canon 14mm 2.8 II
anyone have experience with this lens?

thinking about using it for real estate and ceremony shots
I'm drawn to the fact that it has almost no distortion, if any.
14mm that is really wide!



Nov 03, 2016 at 05:00 PM
rstoddard11
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · UWA lens option?


Rent both. Maybe one for one weekend, another another weekend. Don't rush your purchase.

To me the 16-35 is an astounding lens. I have taken 1/8 second handheld shots with it at 16mm and IS engaged at f4


I have never tried the Tamron.



Nov 03, 2016 at 05:08 PM
hotdog12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · UWA lens option?


I owed the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 version 1 and upgraded to the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS when it first came out. Unless you have an overriding need for the extra stop, the 16- 35 f/4L IS is the way to go. It is sharp at the edges wide open and the IS function is solid, allowing handheld photography under truly dismal light. I don't think I've ever read a single negative post about this lens, even over in DPreview!

I also own the Canon 11-24 f/4L--an absolutely astonishing lens. Kinda like a "proof-of-concept" lens that somehow made it into production. It is quite a hefty chunk o' glass with an equally hefty price tag. If you need it, you know it. Most will be happier with the 16-35 for "normal" photography. Rent it first if you are serious.

No opinion about Tamron, sorry. I tend to stick with the OM lenses for the Canon bodies.



Nov 03, 2016 at 05:18 PM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · UWA lens option?


My view is:

16-35/2.8 v3 is the best UWA zoom lens

ts-17 is best for landscape prime because you can keep your lens level and use the whole lens

Zeiss 15/2.8 is the best prime which 16-35v3 is pretty close to. Neither shifts. I use this one for night-scape.

16-35 is the 2nd best uwa zoom lens

11-24 f4 is the best really wide uwa zoom lens - it is sharpest at 11. The 16-35 f4 and 16-35 f2.8 v3 are better at >16mm, but it is still pretty darn good. Mostly the 11-24 has astigmatism at longer.

The tamron 15-30 is a great (sharp, does not stretch stars at edge) lens for astrophotography but 16-35/f4 is sharper and and so is 16-35/f2.8v3. So buy it if you are more interested in astrophotography and want a less expensive lens. It is better at not stretching stars at the expense of resolution.

The samyany 14/2.8 is good but has large copy to copy variation. Not as sharp as 16-35/f4. More wave distortion. Buy this if you want least expensive.

Summary:

Fastest best zoom = 16-35/f2.8 v3
Best bargain = samyang 14/2.8 good resolution good for astro but copy to copy variation and not as sharp
Best astro/general zoom = tamron 15-30/2.8
Best zoom landscape = 16-35/f4 less $ than 2.8 but not f2.8
Best landscape = TS17 - shifting removes bowed trees and makes the whole lens useful
Best really really wide and sharp for landscape zoom- canon 11-24/f4

Isn't it great to have so many great choices.



Nov 03, 2016 at 08:30 PM
Guest

Guest
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · UWA lens option?


Ah, but now the Sigma 12-24/4 has also entered the equation...


Nov 05, 2016 at 02:05 AM
D.Hussey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · UWA lens option?


jcolwell wrote:
The 16-35/4L IS has better IQ than the 16-35/2.8L II, not a lot better, and really only noticeable at the edges and corners. If you don't need "sharpest" corners, like for landscapes with full-frame content, then there's not much difference in IQ. They both have excellent IQ.

EF 16-35/4L IS test images https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1313373

There's only one way to find out.


Actually there are two ways ....

Rent first then buy
OR
Buy and maybe sell and buy again




Nov 05, 2016 at 02:13 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · UWA lens option?


The only way to find out, is to try it for yourself. Whether you borrow, buy or rent is a different topic.


Nov 05, 2016 at 04:59 AM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · UWA lens option?


Snopchenko wrote:
Ah, but now the Sigma 12-24/4 has also entered the equation...


I'm *really* looking forward to reviews of this lens, especially when filter systems become available for it for landscape use!



Nov 05, 2016 at 07:15 AM
Don Clary
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · UWA lens option?


One thing to consider when thinking about 24-70f2.8L II, 24-70 f4L IS, 16-35 f4 L IS, 24-105 ver 1 or II or other f2.8 or f4 lenses, and IF you have one of the later Canon bodies: 5DIII, 5Ds, 5DsR, 1DX, 1DXII, 5DIV;

These later Canon bodies have 5 central double sensors (known to be extremely accurate and repeatable) and that they ONLY FUNCTION (as double cross) with f2.8 or more open lenses.



Nov 05, 2016 at 08:32 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.