p.2 #1 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
ashton lamont wrote:
Just out of interest, in what circumstances do you use filters?
I don't use filters at all any more other than occasionally polarisers (which the Tamron 15-30 G2 cannot take obviously). And even polarisers are somewhat controversial to use compared to post-editing especially on wide-angle shots in which some areas can appear artificial. I ditched all my graduated filters as they seemed to be just awkward blunt instruments especially for landscapes with varied terrain height and expanses of sky.
The main reason for me is that e.g. Capture One Pro is so good at acquiring "extra" dynamic range via the shadow and highlight areas on e.g. a 5D-IV that for me there is little point in even blending two or more images. And masking areas such as bright window areas in interior shots is not much use for filters as far as I am aware.
I still have a few filters like UV but only use those as protection in e.g. strong salt water spray. Whether filter protection in general is a good idea is controversial:
The Tamron 15-30 G2 does have a facility for inserting a filter at the opposite end to the front element but it involves a filter sheet rather than a traditional screw on filter. The Tamron has a decent built in lens hood unlike my old Canon 15mm f2.8L fisheye which is also bulbous and a pain.
If the OP is happy with f4 rather than f2.8 and if there is good stabilisation by some means then the latest Canon 16-35L F4 must be the first choice for sure. BTW yes the 15-30 is heavy but if you're not carrying a bunch of other kit you can soon get over it.
In my case, I never (or rarely) remove the UV filter. It also provides an extra layer of weather sealing, which in some environments is not a bad thing.
As for the video link of the guy smashing lenses and filters… well, besides the fact that he sounds like an used car dealer (no offense), his testing methods are far from scientific, they are not close to real-life possible accidents, and do not prove anything at all. Just because something is on YouTube or Instagram it doesn’t mean is good advice.
My leaning towards the Canon f/4 IS vs the f/2.8 non-IS is based on personal needs and the use I’ll give to the particular lens). And although the Tamron may be an excellent lens, is not what I need or want in regards of design, weight and cost.
p.2 #2 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
Hey Serge I wouldn't go dissing Steve Perry quite so quickly. he's been on Youtube providing useful clips
(e.g. best use of photographic gimbals with large lenses) for 11 years and has 209k subscribers. That particular video has 4k thumbs up and just 188 thumbs down. He's really just making a point not working for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Just have to take it as it comes as with the likes of the Northrups (1.5 million subs) :- )
As I said the Canon 16-35 F4 IS has got to be the best for your requirements.
I would be most interested to read what EB-1 has to say about his use of filters having been a member for almost two decades as with myself, I suspect I'm missing somethng important.
p.2 #3 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
MagnusPrimus wrote:
In my case, I never (or rarely) remove the UV filter. It also provides an extra layer of weather sealing, which in some environments is not a bad thing.
The UV filtering is useless on modern digital cameras. As supposed insurance, they are not at all cost effective. There are at least some situations in which they have the potential to degrade images.
(The only outlier situation where I can see potential value is in extreme environmental conditions when using a lens that becomes sealed with the addition of the filter AND your camera is equally sealed.)
p.2 #4 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
I don't use UV filters unless I'm shooting in blowing sand or salt spray. I do use a polarizer on my lenses often, including my ultra-wides. Since I'm shooting on RF mount, my Sigma 14-24mm (which is also bulbous, and is phenomenal) isn't a problem because I have the Canon EF-RF drop in polarizer adapter, which works beautifully with that lens.
I shoot a lot of waterfalls in gorges, and a polarizer is essentially must-have for waterfall shots to cut glare off the rocks and foliage, and the sky is almost never prominent in the frame, so I don't need to worry about uneven skies.
The UV filtering is useless on modern digital cameras. As supposed insurance, they are not at all cost effective. There are at least some situations in which they have the potential to degrade images.
(The only outlier situation where I can see potential value is in extreme environmental conditions when using a lens that becomes sealed with the addition of the filter AND your camera is equally sealed.)
Dan
It all comes to a personal decision and preferences. I don't think there is a 100% right or 100% wrong on this issue.
In my case, I am using mostly L glasses on a sealed camera, and I still prefer to add a good quality filter (UV or Clear) for the extra protection. I don't see any degradation on the image by doing so. Perhaps if I go pixel by pixel I may see some difference.
p.2 #6 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
MagnusPrimus wrote:
It all comes to a personal decision and preferences. I don't think there is a 100% right or 100% wrong on this issue.
In my case, I am using mostly L glasses on a sealed camera, and I still prefer to add a good quality filter (UV or Clear) for the extra protection. I don't see any degradation on the image by doing so. Perhaps if I go pixel by pixel I may see some difference.
Serge
There are several situations in which there is definite degradation potential. Here are two:
1. When shooting night photography, the flat interior surface of the filter can and does "double-reflect" light reflecting from the front element.
2. Some lenses (notoriously the original 100-400mm) do not AF as well or with great accuracy when a UV filter is attached.
The other main issue is that the proposed protection advantages of adding a clear glass filter don't actually stand up to a cost-benefit analysis. Take a moment and read my article at the link for the explanation.
- - -
In partial response to another post above, there are two kinds of filters that I do use on occasion. A circular polarizer is useful in several ways. It can increase contrast between sky and clouds, control reflections (on things as diverse as glass and foliage), and it can serve as a sort of pseudo ND ni some cases. I also carry a very dark ND filter and occasionally use it to make relatively long exposures in full daylight.
But aside from these examples, one of the great pluses of our new digital post-processing era is that we can do in post much of what we did with other sorts of filters in the past. (Yes, I have done this long enough to have used a variety of color filters with BW film.)
Dan
Jul 27, 2021 at 10:11 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #7 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
The 16-35/4 is the faster lens if you can get more than a stop out of the IS. If you get 3+ stops, it's lots faster I'm not seeing anything about the 2.8's having IS, although I can miss stuff. Not sure how many people need 2.8 for action at this fl , I'd be almost exclusively landscape I think. Maybe the occasional group shot at the longer end or something.
The 17-40 is supposed to be excellent or at least good from 20-40, light and inexpensive. Might need f/11 at 17mm. See opricallimits test. The extra 5mm might get me out of a 50mm, so I've considered it.
Tamron has made excellent lenses. For years. They sometimes compete on cost but several of their 80's or so zooms had higher maximum center sharpness than the 50/1.8 metal mount on the Modern Photography tests. I was hoping the $80 new 28-80 had 80's optics and cheap due to plastic mount and new technology. It didn't but may have beat the early 2000's Canon zooms it was meant to compete against. (Not sure how good those were...) Even that lens pretty good at f/8-11 or so on aps. Their latest 17-35 looks quite good, if you are interested
I quit leaving the UV (or protective filter, whatever it was) on the 11-16. It can cause flare. I'd rather leave it on to keep the glass pristine but pay extra attention to flare and shading if you use one. Although you can just use your hand to shade the lens, so shading isn't necessarily a difficult thing.
p.2 #8 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
I had the Tamron SP 28-80mm F3.5-4.2 in the late 1980s. Coming from branded Nikkors, I could hardly believe that the IQ deteriorated so much so far away from the edges. It was like a special effects lens. I paid $350 and sold it for $125 a few weeks later.
p.2 #9 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
ashton lamont wrote:
Hey Serge I wouldn't go dissing Steve Perry quite so quickly. he's been on Youtube providing useful clips
(e.g. best use of photographic gimbals with large lenses) for 11 years and has 209k subscribers. That particular video has 4k thumbs up and just 188 thumbs down. He's really just making a point not working for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Just have to take it as it comes as with the likes of the Northrups (1.5 million subs) :- )
As I said the Canon 16-35 F4 IS has got to be the best for your requirements.
I would be most interested to read what EB-1 has to say about his use of filters having been a member for almost two decades as with myself, I suspect I'm missing somethng important.
p.2 #10 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
I use a polarizer and ND on the 16-35/4 IS.
EBH
Thanks, that works for me too. I added an 82mm polariser in April last year as that size was needed for my Tamron 24-70f 2.8 G2 whereas my other similar lenses are 77mm and already have filters of that size. I researched and found all sorts of info about how the current filters are "digital" and apparently better than before. Got the Hoya Pro1 Digital - circular obviously - but ever since the country has been in lock-down and I haven't had much chance to use it.
I hadn't mentioned the Neutral Density filters For me, except in very specific circumstances, I use a variable one and only with video as my dSLR cams do not have built in video ND. (Members not into video: you use it to get the shutter speed down to a desirable 1/50th / 1/60th in e.g. bright sunlight as faster shutter speeds can "look wrong". In practice an ND filter can be a pain in shoot and scoot video in variable light and I just make do with a higher shutter speed).
p.2 #11 · EF 16-35 f/4L IS vs EF 16-35 f/2.8L M II vs EF 17-40 f/4L
MagnusPrimus wrote:
I am looking for a good landscape, interiors & general use lens. Something versatile to carry around when hiking and travelling.
Camera EOS 5D MIV
Any expert advise?
Originally I was considering the EF 16-35 f/2.8 MII, but the more I read the more confusing it gets.
If looking at used lenses prices, the 16-35 f/4 sells for slightly more than the EF 16-35 f2.8 M II.
Beside the differences in aperture and IS, are there any major difference in IQ?
How the EF 17-40 f/4L would compare with either of the above options?
Thanks!
Serge
I have the 17-40 and my copy has a serious de-centering issue which makes one side totally out of focus - hard to say whether that just happened with a bang here and there, but anyhow I've never been blown away by the IQ that came out of that lens. the 16-35 F4 would be a much safer bet, and it also has IS which I would appreciate on my film cameras.
I'm not seeing anything about the 2.8's having IS, although I can miss stuff. Not sure how many people need 2.8 for action at this fl , I'd be almost exclusively landscape I think. Maybe the occasional group shot at the longer end or something.