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

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2017 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii

  
 
rdcross
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


Hello,

I'm wondering if you can please provide me some guidance. I'm an amateur looking for a really good landscape lens I'm only going to use this for landscape and some city architectural shots. I'm waiting on the sigma 14mm 1.8 art for nightscape and astrophotography.

I'm looking for guidance on the 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii. Is it really worth the extra $1000? What am I going to notice as the biggest difference.

Thanks

Edited on Feb 27, 2017 at 12:58 PM · View previous versions



Feb 26, 2017 at 04:39 PM
Mike_5D
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


Save your money. The f/4 is an excellent lens and you probably won't use the f/2.8 wide open where it's heavily vignetted anyway.


Feb 26, 2017 at 04:44 PM
Ming-Tzu
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


The general consensus seems to be that the f/4 with IS is your best bet if landscape and still shots are what you're after. For landscapes, you're stopping the lens down anyway so the f/2.8 doesn't help you much. Plus, the IS helps when tripods are not allowed and need to handhold.

From what I've read, the f/2.8 Mark III is better than the f/4 from an IQ perspective, but only if you really need the f/2.8 (e.g. low light event shooting, applications where the corner vignetting isn't all that of a deal breaker, etc.). Also, note that the f/2.8 is heavier than the f/4 in case you're worried about traveling with the lens.

I was in a similar situation when looking to get one of these lenses, and opted for the f/4 because I never used the 16-35 range for my indoor events. I usually have the 24-70, and 24mm is plenty wide enough for me. I am more than happy with the f/4 for its intended purpose.

Sounds like the f/4 is what you need for landscape. Not sure about astro shots though as I've never done that before. Interested in responses though since I'm going to Utah in April and wondering if the f/4 will suffice, and why I might need a faster lens for astro.



Feb 26, 2017 at 04:47 PM
dgdg
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


Sounds like the f4 is all you need.
For Astro you need to double your ISO compared to f2.8. 3200 becomes 6400 with more noise. I wouldn't use an f4 lens regularly for Astro unless I had a tracker. Even then, I'd rather have a f2.8



Feb 26, 2017 at 08:02 PM
rdcross
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


FYI I'll be using the newly announced 14mm F1.8 art sigma for nightscape and Astro. So sounding like F4 for landscape. Looking for couple more inputs especially if someone has used both. Thanks.

Edited on Feb 27, 2017 at 12:58 PM · View previous versions



Feb 26, 2017 at 10:32 PM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


I'm honestly not sure which is more effective for landscapes between the two, but the 16-35/4L is established as being best in class for the job. It'd likely take a very detailed look on a 5Ds R or adapted A7R II to show the differences, so you'd probably be splitting hairs.

And really, if you don't need f/2.8 for event/PJ work, the 16-35/4L will likely exceed your output requirements.


(the main benefit behind the 16-35/2.8L II vs. III is that if you can have only one ultra-wide zoom, you can have the speed and no longer lose IQ to slower/third-party zooms)



Feb 27, 2017 at 12:44 AM
rabbitmountain
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


I don't have experience with the 16-35/2.8iii but after 10 years of using the 16-35/2.8ii and being underwhelmed with it for landscapes, when I got my 5DsR that was it and I sold the ii to get the 16-35/4IS. Paid only 125, best deal ever.
I can tell you that even on a 5DsR the f4 is amazingly sharp and has good contrast even wide open. And it really shows in my images that I now have the IS (I always shoot hand held). So I am convinced that spending 1000 more for the 2.8iii will put you worse.
The 2.8iii isn't targeted at landscapes, it's for the journalist who needs good wide open sharpness, which also seem to help the Astro photographer.



Feb 27, 2017 at 03:21 AM
alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


The 16-34 F4 L IS works well on my 5DS R. If and when I upgrade to a 120 MP camera, there may be a point in looking at other wide angle lenses for landscape again. The 16-35 F2.8 L III may be a bit better at some focal lengths and apertures, even stopped down, but not universally. If I didn't have the F4, and didn't mind the weight, I might have gone for the 2.8 III now, as I think it is slightly better for tripod based landscape overall, but that one is not universally future-proof either.



Feb 27, 2017 at 03:56 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


rabbitmountain wrote:
I don't have experience with the 16-35/2.8iii


Does anyone? I mean, do any members own the damned thing yet?



Feb 27, 2017 at 04:28 AM
Chris Anthony
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


I think Molson has it, there was an image thread a few days ago that he had started.


Feb 27, 2017 at 11:43 AM
rdcross
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


Thanks everyone. I ordered the F4.



Feb 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM
SoundHound
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


+1 for Mike-5D. The new 16-35mm MKIII has unacceptable F2.8 vignetting. It acts more like a F4.0 lens.


Mar 03, 2017 at 06:29 AM
stevesanacore
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


rdcross wrote:
Thanks everyone. I ordered the F4.


Great choice. The Canon 16-35 2.8 in all it's versions, has never been a stellar lens, (I've had 2 and gave up). My f4 is extraordinary on my 5D3 and Sony A7R2.



Mar 03, 2017 at 07:35 AM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


The f4 is ok...

Dreaming of Winter by Rob Dickinson, on Flickr

Wharariki Dawn by Rob Dickinson, on Flickr

Long Term Parking by Rob Dickinson, on Flickr

The Devils In The Detail by Rob Dickinson, on Flickr

On a Knife Edge by Rob Dickinson, on Flickr

Wish you were here? by Rob Dickinson, on Flickr



Mar 03, 2017 at 03:37 PM
molson
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


Chris Anthony wrote:
I think Molson has it, there was an image thread a few days ago that he had started.


Yes, but I don't want to have to contradict all the "experts" who obviously know so much more about the lens than I do...




Drumbeg Provincial Park, Gabriola




Mar 03, 2017 at 03:43 PM
1swt2gs
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


Had this same dilemma and did a lot of research.

f/4 will be good enough for your needs.

The only time people really recommend the mark III is for extremely low light and astro.

Save the money and get a good tripod instead for those night shots. For most architecture and landscape you want to stop down around f/8 anyways



Mar 03, 2017 at 03:51 PM
RobDickinson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


Astro I prefer 35-50mm and stitching.

THe 16-35 mk3 is an awesome lens though, certainly not the wrong choice if you go for it.



Mar 03, 2017 at 03:56 PM
rdcross
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


Thanks Everyone! I'll be headed out to New York City first week of April to try the F4 out.




Mar 04, 2017 at 07:37 PM
arbitrage
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


The f/2.8 III is the better lens optically especially compared to its predecessors but for landscapes shot at f/8 or f/11 I would think the advantages of the f/4 IS would outweigh that optical performance as stopping down that far usually evens things out. At least with the f/4 IS you have the IS if needed a smaller, lighter lens and what was considered to be the best UW zoom from Canon until the f/2.8III arrived.

But if you have other uses for the 2.8 then it will make a superb landscape lens as well once stopped down to get rid of the ridiculous vignetting that it has.



Mar 04, 2017 at 08:17 PM
photoin.nyc
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Landscape Lens 16-35 F4 vs F2.8 iii


Ming-Tzu wrote:
The general consensus seems to be that the f/4 with IS is your best bet if landscape and still shots are what you're after. For landscapes, you're stopping the lens down anyway so the f/2.8 doesn't help you much. Plus, the IS helps when tripods are not allowed and need to handhold.

From what I've read, the f/2.8 Mark III is better than the f/4 from an IQ perspective, but only if you really need the f/2.8 (e.g. low light event shooting, applications where the corner vignetting isn't all that of a deal breaker, etc.). Also, note that the f/2.8 is
...Show more

Any feedback from Utah? How did the f4 perform?



May 10, 2017 at 01:59 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

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.