EF 16-35 f2.8 M2 v 16-35 f4

[MickSimpson]

<p>I just signed on to take real estate photos of upscale homes. I know that the EF 16-35 f4 L has a great reputation with RE photographers for producing sharp photos. Has anyone compared the EF 16-35 f2.8 M2 to the EF 16-35 f4 L for sharp image quality?<br>

Thanks! </p>

[brett_w.]

<p>I haven't but you can compare lens sharpness rating at sites like <a href="http://www.photozone.de/">http://www.photozone.de/</a></p>

[MickSimpson]

<p>Brett W. : I checked Photozone as you suggested as well as a couple of other reviews. The Photozone review of the EF 16-35 f2.8 L III did have comments regarding how it stacks up against the newer lens that I found helpful. I'm leaning towards the EF 16-35 f4 L so far. Factors are price and sharpness - I want the gear that provides me with an edge.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The consensus is that the f4 IS is considerably better. In my experience it is very good, and on the 6D I can't find any weaknesses, except that it is not f2.8. It is on a par, at least to me, with the 24-70II f2.8 and the 24mm f2.8 IS. The 35 IS is perhaps a little crisper, but at f4 I do not think I could reliably tell it from the zoom. It would be perfect for real estate, and the IS is, arguably, more useful than the extra stop for general use.</p>

[MickSimpson]

<p>Oops... I just noticed that my original post reads EF 16-35 f2.8 L M2 whereas I meant EF 16-35 f2.8 LMark III vs the EF 16-35 f4 L.<br>

Robin: Thank you! I use the 5d MIII for my work. I agree that the IS helps the f4 version. I have the 24-70 f2.8, great lens, but I'm looking for that extra bit of wide angle. Leaning a bit more towards the EF 16-35 f4 L. I could use the savings for more goodies.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>IS should not affect real estate usage. I also doubt that for real estate the difference between these two lenses matter. I'm shooting real estate in the $1.5M+ range, most photos go on the web, the ones for the brochures are rarely full page, and comparative lens sharpness is irrelevant. If you have a use for f2.8 outside of real estate , then it make sense. Otherwise, you would be better off saving some money and buying the 17-40. I used that for a number of years but bought the 16-35/2.8 for other uses and sold the 17-40. There is absolutely no difference between these lenses for print or web for real estate.</p>

[MickSimpson]

<p>Hi Jeff.<br>

Great feedback on this; published venue / web & brochure resolution and your experience. I am going with the EF 16-35 f4 L based on feedback. The 17-40 is an older lens that I had not considered due to the comparative performance against the EF 16-35 f4 L. I do other subjects and think that I'll get that edge with the EF 16-35 f4 L while saving some money.<br>

Thanks to all for your feedback, and happy holidays to you!<br>

Mick</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L III is fantastic. This very expensive mark III version finally catches up to the great performing f/4 version. But it's only real advantage comes with it's added lens speed. This of course serves you well mainly in the <strong>sports</strong> world.</p>

<p>Now the f/4 <strong>Image Stabilized</strong> version is just as sharp at the corners, plus the IS lessens the use of the 'delete' button due to pesky motion blur!<br /> When it comes to stills its in essence an f/2 lens. For handheld architecture/landscapes coupled to edge sharpness, make it the f/4 IS.<br>

The perfect lens for most photographers. - Read this full review <a href="http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/16-35mm-is.htm">Canon 16-35mm f/4 L IS</a> <<<<em> click</em></p>

[MickSimpson]

<p>Thank you Gus!<br>

This really hit the mark. Looks like the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L III and EF 16-35mm f/4 L are on par with each other on image quality - sharpness with the differences being speed and price. The EF 16-35mm f/4 L is my Christmas gift to me!<br>

Happy Holidays!</p>

[MickSimpson]

<p>Thank you all for your feedback. I pulled the trigger today and purchased the EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS USM. I can't wait to start using it.</p>