tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post1329304028394445043..comments2024-02-12T03:21:03.402-08:00Comments on Ron Martinsen's Photography Blog: COMPARISON: Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS vs 16-35mm f/2.8L IIronmartblog.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06815090271742112506noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post-79561746777246128742014-08-01T16:00:56.875-07:002014-08-01T16:00:56.875-07:00JP,
Fair enough, then that would indicate that th...JP,<br /><br />Fair enough, then that would indicate that the 16-35mm f/4L IS is a valuable upgrade to you. <br /><br />I include the bookshelf and unedited sample shots so that people can see with their own eyes what a real shot looks like versus ISO charts and edited photos so that they draw their own conclusions. I offer my opinion, but in the end it's just that - my opinion. For me I see nothing compelling enough for me to take the financial loss on my 16-35mm f/2.8L II and pick up the f/4, but as I said in my review - if someone doesn't own a wide angle then the f/4 is a great choice to start with. ronmartblog.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06815090271742112506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post-81742336187247749292014-08-01T12:30:36.920-07:002014-08-01T12:30:36.920-07:00I respectfully disagree. Esp. with W/A lenses, the...I respectfully disagree. Esp. with W/A lenses, there is often stuff in the corners that needs to be sharp too, and the 2.8 is really pretty mushy in the corners. For photo journalists shoving the lens into people's faces to get close to the action, that's fine, but for landscape, I'd definitely prefer the F4. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640729547040033538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post-21924295467352756872014-08-01T11:49:01.271-07:002014-08-01T11:49:01.271-07:00Yes, that's why I said "Sharpness-wise, t...Yes, that's why I said <i>"Sharpness-wise, there’s no doubt that the new f/4 is super sharp when you pixel peep with test charts". </i><br /><br />However, the way wide angle lenses are most often used I believe that the difference won't be super obvious in real world applications. This is different from say a 50mm and up where the shots you take tend to me more tight so you can really see a sharpness difference.<br /><br />I still stick to my advice - if you own the 16-35mm f/2.8L II then I don't see this as a must upgrade, but if you don't own that lens I'd advise getting the 16-35mm f/4L IS as your next wide angle lens.ronmartblog.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06815090271742112506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5826231802859523569.post-44099392500172170002014-08-01T11:43:52.354-07:002014-08-01T11:43:52.354-07:00Surprising results. I noticed that the F4 is *much...Surprising results. I noticed that the F4 is *much* sharper than the F2.8. See e.g. this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640729547040033538noreply@blogger.com