Choosing Canon UWA; 16-35/4, or 2.8 II, or wait for replacement for 2.8 II

UKmitch86 · 14 Jun 2016

I'm playing a waiting game at the moment, waiting for Canon's purported June announcement of the 16-25 f/2.8 Mark 3. I need a good UWA for a full frame Canon, but am relatively budget conscious.

My choices as I can currently see are,
1) Go straight for the f/4 version, it's sharp and popular, but f/4.
2) Buy an f/2.8 II, even with soft corners it's obviously not been a problem for many owners for years. Used prices are OK, but they may come down further with a new annoucement.
3) Wait for the f/2.8 III - supposedly as good optically as the f/4 version, lets in another stop of light, but will be expensive.

I'm going away in October to Thailand and am looking to have a landscape and 'night market/temple' lens. The f/4 fulfils the landscape, but the f/2.8 gives me more confidence in the dark.

Box Brownie · 14 Jun 2016

The f4 for weight and budget is on my GAS list and on my 5D3 it would be fine wide open at high ISO so depends IMO on what body and its ISO performance???

UKmitch86 · 14 Jun 2016

Box Brownie said:
The f4 for weight and budget is on my GAS list and on my 5D3 it would be fine wide open at high ISO so depends IMO on what body and its ISO performance???

Ta for reply - I'm on a 1Ds3, so would prefer not to go beyond 1600. H is 3200 if memory serves.

I did think about the Tamron 15-30 but have discounted after considering what happens to the used prices of 3rd party lenses.

There's also the security of knowing the Canon AF is native and there are lens correction profiles available in DPP.

Brachytron · 15 Jun 2016

The 16-35 f4 has IS, which more than compensates for the 1 stop less light, so might be best. Not sure if the f2.8 III will have IS though. When the Mark III is launched, it will be very expensive at least for a while, and at about £680 the f4 is great value and super sharp.

UKmitch86 · 15 Jun 2016

Brachytron said:
The 16-35 f4 has IS, which more than compensates for the 1 stop less light, so might be best. Not sure if the f2.8 III will have IS though. When the Mark III is launched, it will be very expensive at least for a while, and at about £680 the f4 is great value and super sharp.

Agreed on the cost of the mark 3, hopefully its mere existence is enough to get plenty of mark 2s into the used market and drive price down a bit.

Regards the 2.8 vs 4, the IS will hold YOU steady, but not the subject. The 2.8 lets you speed up the shutter, whereas the 4 forces you to rely on IS if the scene is static or up the ISO if moving.

I think I'll give it until the end of the month to see if an announcement is made about the 3, and prepare to buy a good copy of the 2 regardless.

Impspeed · 16 Jun 2016

I went from the Nikon 14-24 to Tamron 15-30. Ok, it's not Canon but don't discount the third party lenses. As I shoot quite a bit, even with the UWA, wide open with time lapse, the 15-30 works better for me. I don't really care about what the second hand market does with these lenses as I am always of the opinion that it's a tool that will stay with me for a long time. I don't know what else will come, how used prices will be in 3-5 years. If you're planning to buy and replace every year or so, then maybe, but surely a lens is for life? Buy right, buy once.

UKmitch86 · 16 Jun 2016

Impspeed said:
I went from the Nikon 14-24 to Tamron 15-30. Ok, it's not Canon but don't discount the third party lenses. As I shoot quite a bit, even with the UWA, wide open with time lapse, the 15-30 works better for me. I don't really care about what the second hand market does with these lenses as I am always of the opinion that it's a tool that will stay with me for a long time. I don't know what else will come, how used prices will be in 3-5 years. If you're planning to buy and replace every year or so, then maybe, but surely a lens is for life? Buy right, buy once.

Hiya. Years ago when I first started taking photography as a serious hobby I bought a 70-300 Tamron, the one with their USD and VC. I remember the VC being streets ahead of the 18-55 kit zoom I had. I understand it's still just as good today relative to the Canon offerings.

I don't have a problem with third party lenses per se, this 15-30 gets good reviews all around. I wouldn't buy new, so I suppose I shouldn't complain about any drop in value as it'd already have dropped by the time I'd bought it.

That leaves me with the AF accuracy - how do you find it on Nikon? To ditch the 14-24 must've been a difficult choice? Or is the difference between the lenses noticeable?

Impspeed · 16 Jun 2016

UKmitch86 said:
I don't have a problem with third party lenses per se, this 15-30 gets good reviews all around. I wouldn't buy new, so I suppose I shouldn't complain about any drop in value as it'd already have dropped by the time I'd bought it.

That leaves me with the AF accuracy - how do you find it on Nikon? To ditch the 14-24 must've been a difficult choice? Or is the difference between the lenses noticeable?

I never 'owned' the 14-24. I basically stole my Dad's copy while we both lived in Dubai. Now he's moving back to the UK, taking his 14-24 back with him, I had to replace the UWA in my kit bag.

It's the only zoom lens I own and there's positives/negatives comparing both the 14-24 and 15-30. The Tamron is slightly heavier but still feels balanced. It's much cheaper, being the biggest decision factor for me, plus combined with its superior sharpness at 2.8 (it's easily sharper throughout the frame wide open at 15mm without pixel peeping) made it a winner for me. Build feels very good - no worse than the 14-24. My biggest issue now is investing in the filters for it, something which I held off with the 14-24.

I'm not 100% on Canon lenses but will the new 16-35mm (MkIII) still have the 82mm filter ring or is it likely to go bulbous?

UKmitch86 · 16 Jun 2016

Impspeed said:
I never 'owned' the 14-24. I basically stole my Dad's copy while we both lived in Dubai. Now he's moving back to the UK, taking his 14-24 back with him, I had to replace the UWA in my kit bag.

It's the only zoom lens I own and there's positives/negatives comparing both the 14-24 and 15-30. The Tamron is slightly heavier but still feels balanced. It's much cheaper, being the biggest decision factor for me, plus combined with its superior sharpness at 2.8 (it's easily sharper throughout the frame wide open at 15mm without pixel peeping) made it a winner for me. Build feels very good - no worse than the 14-24. My biggest issue now is investing in the filters for it, something which I held off with the 14-24.

I'm not 100% on Canon lenses but will the new 16-35mm (MkIII) still have the 82mm filter ring or is it likely to go bulbous?

I've no idea on the Mark 3 filter situation. Their original 16-35 had a 77mm thread, so I guess it's technically possible. Just a guess though.

I've managed to find myself another option which may be even better suited to the application I was thinking of - the 24/1.4 Mark 2 - a prime, and a fast one at that. Native AF, weather sealing and optically up there with the best. I used to own the 24/3.5 TS, which was MF only, so not so good for these street shots, but I did learn to work well with the 24mm.

On the whole, I do prefer primes, but for some reason I'd told myself I'm better off with zooms at the UWA and super tele ends of the FL range. Perhaps it's wise to reconsider. There's something to be said for becoming so used to a FL's particular FOV that you see the shot before you lift the camera to your eye.