Time Markers: 0:00 - Lens Overview 1:03 - Differences Between 2.8 and 4 1:56 - Why the 2.8 is Better (even though I didn't buy it) 3:23 - Camera Settings 3:42 - What does 16mm Look Like? 4:53 - f4 vs. 2.8 Comparison 6:55 - f4 vs. 2.8 Side by Side 7:42 - IS Comparison 9:34 - Weight Comparison 10:15 - My Conclusions
I think you made a good choice. What I do to pick lenses: Zooms all f4 : 14-24mm / 24-70mm / 70-200mm (Cheaper and lighter) Fast Primes: Just pick the ones you need and fast version f1.8 / f.1.4 / f1.2
Great comparison! I vote for the F4 for the IS and lighter weight. I see the F4 being a more video oriented lens for those reasons. At 16mm the depth of field isn’t really that shallow on either lens, certainly not $1000 more shallow 👍🏻
One year later and your review is still very much relevant. So thank you for this. No more debate needed... I'm going with the f/4! 📷 ... Oh but you're 24mm f/.18 is so sweet and tempting too! :)
Dude. I always struggle to get through CZcams reviews of gear but this one was absolutely perfect. You completely nailed it and basically covered everything that needs to be covered in a very sober way. Also you seem like a really humble and cool dude unlike a LOT of people on social media. Great job!
Nice video man! I currently have the 16-35 f4 lens, been using it all year and it’s solid! Always questioned if the 2.8 would be a great upgrade but watching this definitely makes me feel like it’s not. However, that new 15-35 2.8 IS RF Lens seems like a win!
I found a used 16-35 f/2.8 version 2 lens at my local camera shop for a little under $1000. It's definitely not as sharp as the version 3, and probably not as sharp as the f/4, but I really love the way it looks nonetheless. It's hard to go wrong with a Canon L-series lens
vlogging on a 6d mk2 is OVERKILL - that is a camera that deserves time out in the field! Thank you for the review between the 2.8 and 4.0, definitely helped guide my purchase decision
I bought the f4 before the 2.8 version 3 came out because the version 2 wasn't as sharp as the f4, The IS helps a lot when freehanding, when using it for landscapes you are not going to use 2.8 or f4 anyways, glad I got the f4 no regrets. Switching over to the R5 or R6 and going to get the 2.8 version since it has IS, 15 a little wider and it is sharper than both EF.
Unless I am doing portraits, I am not too fussed about aperture. When I do street, landscaping, and architecture, I deliberately underexpose the image to save as much detail as possible. I keep it at F8 or above. This way, via Lightroom I can bring out those details. It just looks better than apposed to allowing the exposure to reduce the dept. The EF 16-35 IS F4 is one of my favorite lenses. I mainly shoot during day time. I hardly ever used this lens at F4 during day for street photography.
Man...is there any more of a thorough review than what you have offered us? I don't think so. The immediate swapping video images made it SO perfect to decide!! Thank you so very much. I am buying 2nd hand and only have owned 24-70 and other zoom lenses and some primes. Trying to decide now between 24-70 2.8 or this model you showed (2.8). Hmmm....!! Thanks again!!
what do you think as far sa sharpness goes compared to the f4? I do real estate photography and am looking to upgrade from my cannon ef 17-40 . I want something tac sharp and brilliant: D
I think for landscape you will anyway stop down for greater depth of field so that does not make any difference. Plus the is you get is a much better thing Regards
Great comparison! I agree with you, that price gap would be a hard sell; especially when you have a camera that can easily handle that slight bump in ISO and the footage from the f4 looked so great (and the I.S. certainly doesn't hurt). 2.8 is nice, but maybe not $1000 nice!
Background blur also depends on where your focus points are .. you didn't talk about that setting. With a really near focus point you will get lots more background blur versus a distant focus point where you will get lesser background blur .. it is all relative to the focus point in question. In this case, you are are about 3 feet away from the lens and the wall behind you is not too far out for you to notice the background blur whether it is a 2.8 or a 4.0. If you were outdoors you will notice that the background video blur or bokeh in stills in a 2.8 is way better than a 4.0.
Thanks for the review ;) As i expected, the f4 is more useful when you're a photographer and videomaker. I'm so excited to have this lens in my hand *-*
I'm late to the party but this is exactly what I needed. Like most people, I am enamored by the f2.8 and wondered if it was worth the money. This video helped me eliminate the RF 15-35 and the f2.8 version but now I also want a Sigma 24mm f1.4.
Ooh, I’ve been curious about that Art lens! The light is a Dracast Silkray 800 that I borrowed to experiment with. It’s big, thin, bright, and nicely diffused. I like it so far 👍
Sigma is a third party lens company that when spare part or repairs are needed they won't be available. Along time ago when I first tried a 28-235 image stabilized lens. I had an option in 1999 of Canon's first image stabilized 35mm lens in the world to use on my EOS 3 film camera. Or later sigma copied Canon's ideal. And I opted for the sigma 28 -135 f 3.5 /4 image stabilized. And after three years the auto focus stopped functioning andthe lens was discontonued so spare parts were no longer available. So repair was out of the question. I contacted sigma they said they could sell me a replacement lens of a different zoom range. So it was then I purchased the Canon version and I'm still using that lens on Canon digital bodies. So buy Nikon,Sony or Canon you won't be let down. And ultra wide lenses at ranges greater than 16mm is very hard to construct and get a good image that's why my Canon 11-24 mm f4 costed so much it took Canon years to prefect that lens and did they ever accomplish that, it's tack sharp at all settings. Like the Canon 16-35 mm f4 i.s. CANON ULTRA WIDE ZOOMS ARE FAR SUPERIOR TO ALL LENS MANUFACTURES AND COST LESS THAN NIKON.
@@forsterl.stewart414 is f 2.8 lens substantially sharper than the F4? I do real estate photography and I'm looking to upgrade. I just want something extremely sharp and brilliant: D
I was looking for a new wide angle first looking at the sigma 18-35 f1.8. But now ending up deciding between the f4 and f2.8 the IS really is the biggest selling point imo. Really nice video as well!
i think the difference with the two lenses if you take night, astro photography go for the f/2.8 i went for the f/4 version personally the image stability is a must for me
Video @10:00 - "I can Stop that Down all the way to" - Just a minor point. You don't stop-down to f/2.8 (wide-open). You stop-down to f/22 (smallest aperture) etc. One Opens-Up the aperture to let's say f/2.8...
Hey, great video. I personally don't see a huge difference between both of them for video. Probably you can get better pictures with the 2.8 but for video I think the 4f is better, especially since the 2.8 f doesn't have image stabilisation .. (which surprised me btw 🤷🏻♀️) and it's heavier..
Great comparison, especially keeping it nice, simple and with real world samples. Just what I needed to make up my mind, thanks. F4 for me, saved the $1k towards another prime 👌
You can't go wrong either way. If you want better low light and slightly more shallow depth of field, go for the 2.8. If you want the benefit of stabilization or plan to do a lot of landscape photos, the f4 is terrific. And, for what it's worth, I like that the f4 has a 77mm diameter (it works with all the filters I already had).
Ah man, this video is SUPER helpful for me right now. I stupidly got a ton of dust on my 17-40 a few months back and am looking to upgrade. I think you just talked me into 2.8...gah!
I would say though that most canon DSLR's don't have inbuilt image stabilisation like the 6d Mk II or the mirrorless R5 you're using. It almost looks as if the f/4 is not working well (in sync together) with the inbuilt stabilisation of the R5. It looks a little shakier than the R5 working alone with f/2.8... hmmm I wonder if it's any better with the 6D Mk II as it's designed primarily for a DSLR? If so with the mirrorless then a non-image stabilised 16-35 would be the better option..🤔I suppose for filming that would be the answer, but if it's for general photography, can it be counted on that the f/2.8 actually has better sharpness and depth of field significant enough for the price increase?.... Great real world review btw 👌detailed and certainly helping me make a decision.
Great Video once again... I use the 16-35 F4 as well but again I do CZcams reviews and vlog as well You could always do talking head vids with the 50mm 1.8 for Extreme Boka...lol but lose the wider background of course!
That’s the tough part because I wanted the wider field of view since I often have stuff to show and I usually talk with my hands like a maniac. The F4 is a beautiful lens for sure!
Canon 16-35 mm f4 image stabilized lens brought state of the art sharpness to Canon's ultra wide lenses. Only the newer 11-24 f4 or the 16-35 f2.8 miii are as sharp but neither of these lenses have image stabilization. And all other ultra wides are inferior. Check out the mtf charts of any of these lense against the 16- 35mm f2.8, 16-35 f2.8 mii. Or the 17-40mm f4. I use both the 11-24 f4 and the 16-35 mm f4 i.s. for all my archetecture and landscape as well as commercial work. The f4 version is as sharp plus image stabilized and is less expensive as the 2.8 miii version. More cost effective and one stop.of light loss is not that important even in interiors for me. You have the image stabilization option if you don't have your tripod. But I always have a tripod in my kit bag.
I have the 17 to 40 mm. Do you think it would be that much more of an upgrade? I'm debating whether or not I should just upgrade my lens or go to a full on mirrorless set up.
I am with you 100% I have been going back and forth, but I use my camera primarily for video so IS helps on my 6d2. Plus at 16-35 2.8 it’s hard to even get a super shallow DOF because it’s so wide. Definitely think you are right on with this, not worth double the price in my eyes. Plus I shoot real estate as well so I never go below f7 doing that anyway lol 😂 I’m with you on the sigma art series as well 👌🏻 excellent glass and beautiful bokeh. Thanks for making this! 👍🏻😎
2.8 and 4 are too little different. Plus IS is a bonus for me as I don’t use tripod that much. lol and then…not much chances to use 2.8 so light depth.
sir you dont need another filter because you have different lens diameter, all you need is an adaptor ring that fits to your step up or step down filter size. the chinese made a lot of this adaptor rings so the price went down dramatically to $5 a piece for aluminum or the whole set if you want a plastic ring.
Just curious, did you consider the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art ? It is much cheaper than the Canon L lens and at an F1.8 it will give you more of the shallow depth of field you mentioned you were looking for in the F2.8. I am considering it for my next glass purchase over the Canon lenses.
I have the sigma art 18 to 35 and 50 to 100 1.8 for crop sensor and they're amazing. I use the 18 to 35 on my Canon EOS R all the time. Sigma is making amazing lenses these days
Good review. I think you're nuts to have IS on during walk-around video blogging...you actually bounce around in frame more than the non IS if you watch close. If you really want good "gimbal" action...get a gimbal and save the $$$ and you'll be wow-ed.
Great stuff man, I was thinking about making a video about why the 16-35 2.8 is currently my favorite lens. I might steal some of your info :) Thank you for posting this.
It’s a great landscape lens. I recommend checking out Thomas Heston’s channel. He’s a landscape photographer who does amazing work with the 16-35 f4. 😎
@@tombuck I really enjoy your videos. You do such a thorough job, and your style is really engaging, relaxed and authentic. I am learning alot from your channel. BTW I like the podcast you and Peter Lindgren have started as well. Thanks for acknowledging my comment, and keep up the great work! Mike
I need something wide and fast for my c200 and eosr, stumbled onto your channel while comparing lenses... love your reviews! very helpful!! :) still stuck on a lens though lol, thinking sigma 14-24 2.8. . . fast as you're gonna get i think (for a full frame zoom?)
Hey! The Sigma 14-24 is probably the widest/fastest lens you’re going to get (at least without totally breaking the bank). I did a review on it if you haven’t seen it- I really like it.
Great review and nicely done with those comparison shots. Though, for your studio shots that SIGMA 24mm (f1.4 - Art Lens) is looking really nice. Has some really nice bokeh. Like yourself I'm looking for a lens with image stabilization and that can give me some nice bokeh as well. That sigma's looking pretty sweet but all my gear is Canon so not switching manufacturers for obvious reasons. Looking for a nice Canon lens for video mostly that I can use for the majority of my indoor product shots and has some nice bokeh to it. This was helpful....I think I need to keep looking.
The sigma really is outstanding, and with the EOS R's autofocus, the 1.4 aperture is really usable. Of course there's always the Canon 24 1.4, but that's a bit out of my budget. I'm a fan of wide lenses with wide apertures. 👍
This was very helpful,thank you. Other examples you could have shown is by taking photos outdoors so we can gauge the difference in sharpness, bokeh,vignetting,chromatic aberration and image quality. Still, your video is good for those doing blogs and videos.
Thanks! I do focus mostly on video personally, so that's the perspective I took with the video. Anecdotally, I can say that the 2.8 is sharper, but I don't know if it's enough of a difference to justify the price.
Thank you! This is exactly the info I was looking for. I'm fairly new, and would like a lens good for both video and photo. I'm considering the 2.8 L ii (not the iii) vs the f4. I didn't feel the 2.8 iii gave that much better image stabilization in your video...can you please give me your opinion? I'm trying to decide if the f4 would be better due to the IS, or if the 2.8lens would hold its value more and be better , even though just 1 stop. when I last looked I think the 2.8 ii is about $200-$300 more than the f4 with IS.
If you can find one, the version II is a great deal, and I'd probably go with the 2.8 for that price. I don't think 1 extra stop is worth $1000, but I think it's definitely worth $200(ish).
Just found your channel thanks to CZcams recommandations (you got a new subscriber ^^) and this video is so helpful because I have this exact question but for a 24-70 ... the thing is, I use an APS-C (and probably for a while until they release an Eos R mark 2 ^^) and the 2.8 would help me for that but I don't have very big production project etc that makes me wonder if I shouldn't "upgrade" for an F4 in the beginning that would anyway bring me way more quality .. And this quality could help to reach bigger projects that would involve even better gear ...
Hey, glad you’re here! I think the f4 will work great in a crop sensor camera. That being said, I’m a believer that you should always buy the best you can afford (without going into debt or selling a kidney). The 2.8 is a better lens, but I personally don’t think it’s $1000 better. You could get a second lens like a super sharp prime for less money.
@@tombuck Thanks for the quick answer ! In your video, like you said I honestly don't see a gain worth $1000 ... except for ISO gain but ... probably cheaper to buy a small light or something to balance that ... And I have a 50 1.8 that I could use on the side 🤔 I wanted the 24-70 2.8 to shoot weddings with only this lens but ... yeah ... after I saw your video I'll probably go with the F4 ! Thanks so much
Great video - good to know that the difference between F4 & 2.8 is not that significant. Have you looked into the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art DC HSM Lens for Canon?
@@tombuck Very good point Tom - I missed that! I am new to video recording for CZcams. Trying to get a good shot of me playing bass with my studio in the background... I will order the Sigma 24mm F1.4 for full frame - your video is among the best I have seen to really show what it does with great comparisons. So you have not yet found a fine full frame prime lens wider than 20mm for aperture larger than F2 that would work with the Canon EOS R and be reasonably priced?
I'd like to see a bokeh ball comparison tho. I still purchased the F4 thanks to your video since I bought it for landscapes photography use. Since landscapes are made between f8 - 11 I think I made the right choice going F4.
For landscapes, it's a fantastic choice. If you haven't seen it, Thomas Heaton made a whole video on how he uses the F4 for landscapes and gets outstanding results.
I found the 16-35mm 2.8 (1st gen) and the f4 used at the exact same price in my local area. Not sure if the optical quality would be as sharp as the newer f4 but the 2.8 would be great for some extra bokeh/indoors. quite difficult to pick one between these 2
I found both f2.8 used for 800 and it is in excellent condition. For that price would you still choose the f4 over the f2.8? I also have the EOS R which has Digital IS, ....does that help with overall choosing the f2.8?
Loved your video! I’m trying to buy a new lens …. And my goal is to buy a lens that can be used in many different ways/purposes. Mostly for photography :) would the f4 be a good one? Thank you for your time!!!
I just heard the Sigma has a new 16mm f1.4 for canon mirrorless! So I don’t know if I should get the sigma 24 with my speedbooster Or the new sigma 16mm
My vote is for F4. No IS is big deal for me. Nowadays, modern camera can handle higher iso. Yeah modern camera like EOS R6 Mark II have IBIS but from I've watched it's not that good.
Just watched the potato version of this video where he reads a comment from you in his review. And you've got a review/diffs video too. I like it, stay on that hustle and glad you went more tech and applications comparisons than the jet's hair torching video but both are exceptionally useful. Considering I want to shoot bmx and have noticed my 6dii plus 70-200 2.8 is ridiculously better than my 80d and 10-18 (i know, apples and oranges) but I may have to rent the 2.8 and 4 to see which works better for my video needs.
Haha, I was very shocked to see my name pop up in that video! But yeah, if you can try each out, that’s the best way to decide. The 2.8 is a beautiful lens, but I’ve been more than happy with the f4 👍
@@tombuck Thank you for the reply! I went with the f4 and love the improvement. Well worth it and I don't need to buy new filters so I'm happy. You're internet famous! Bask in the glory hahah thank you again!
@@tombuck I just bought a 24-105 f4L ii. so i should be ok for most purposes except that both are a bit heavy. i am beginning to learn the benefits of lighter weight equipment haha...
Today's camera do so well with high ISO, f/2.8 is not worth it unless you do a lot of professional low light work. Spend that extra money on more lens.
Sorry but it's been 4 days searching how to cut that time bar thing in your video. Can you please share that.. My second time seeing such, first was of epidemic. I really like this cut style in progress bar.
Are you talking about the markers that show up in the progress bar of the CZcams player? It’s a new feature CZcams added this week. If you put time stamps in the description of your video, it automatically marks them on the progress bar. I really like it 👍
correction: Sorry but as you said youtube added this feature this week but you started doing this 9 months ago and that video was Canon eos r-top 5 underrated features, I put time markers on description but it doesn't do..maybe there's a subscription count like less than 5k get lost or something..lol..I wanted to do this in my wife's fitness channel so it would have been easier..you know..
The upload date shouldn’t matter as long as the time stamps are in the description, so this could show up on older videos. I’m not sure how they decide which accounts to use it on. It might be a new feature that’s being tested randomly. 🤷🏻♂️
@@tombuck oh yea, so sorry, maybe this corona thing messed up my brain..lol..anyways thankyou for your time..3840*1920 rock and this progress bar surely rocks.
Very helpful, thanks for sharing. How is the autofocus noise on the 16-35 2.8 III? I have the version II and it is horrible. Lots of rumble and rattle which is impossible to get around with a hotshoe mic.
I plan on buying one of these lenses I think I'm gonna buy either the first one for 440 used, or the mark II for like 970 used. Would you reccomend the first or second version of this lens?
The Mark II is going to be a bit better if you can swing it with your budget. Image quality is terrific on both, but the II has updated autofocus, which is nice.
It's definitely an expesnive hobby. Having used both side by side quite a bit, I think the f4 is definitely the better value is you don't absolutely need the 2.8.
Thank you, great video. I am more than a beginer and i am so confused..can i set 16-35mm F4 lense to shoot at 24mm or i have to buy 24mm prime? I cannot buy both of them..i want to shoot product videos like you..plus i want to shoot outdoor cinematic videos...please can someone help me..i will buy sony a7iii. Btw great channel, videos and everything... Sorry for bad english.
You can set a 16-35mm to 24, but it won’t have the same shallow depth of field as a prime lens, so you won’t get backgrounds that are quite as blurry. Just something to be aware of. 👍
@@tombuck thank you so much..please tell me just one more thing..what size of ND filter do i need for 35mm lense? Or 24mm? I am very confused when it comes to numbers...
It depends on the lens. Each lens will have its filter diameter printed on the front- it is a different number than focal length (so a 24mm lens could have a 77mm filter size).
Time Markers:
0:00 - Lens Overview
1:03 - Differences Between 2.8 and 4
1:56 - Why the 2.8 is Better (even though I didn't buy it)
3:23 - Camera Settings
3:42 - What does 16mm Look Like?
4:53 - f4 vs. 2.8 Comparison
6:55 - f4 vs. 2.8 Side by Side
7:42 - IS Comparison
9:34 - Weight Comparison
10:15 - My Conclusions
I think you made a good choice. What I do to pick lenses:
Zooms all f4 : 14-24mm / 24-70mm / 70-200mm (Cheaper and lighter)
Fast Primes: Just pick the ones you need and fast version f1.8 / f.1.4 / f1.2
This is a good rule of thumb 👍
Great comparison! I vote for the F4 for the IS and lighter weight. I see the F4 being a more video oriented lens for those reasons. At 16mm the depth of field isn’t really that shallow on either lens, certainly not $1000 more shallow 👍🏻
I agree completely. The only caveat being that the 2.8 is a bit better for indoor video, but the f4 is awesome.
One year later and your review is still very much relevant. So thank you for this. No more debate needed... I'm going with the f/4! 📷 ... Oh but you're 24mm f/.18 is so sweet and tempting too! :)
Oh my gosh, I LOVE the 24 1.4. Beyond words.
Dude. I always struggle to get through CZcams reviews of gear but this one was absolutely perfect. You completely nailed it and basically covered everything that needs to be covered in a very sober way. Also you seem like a really humble and cool dude unlike a LOT of people on social media. Great job!
Oh wow, thank you so much! I definitely try to make videos I'd actually want to watch, so I'm really glad to know it was helpful!
Great comparison. With the IS of the f4, it makes it so much more capable than the f2.8.
Nice video man! I currently have the 16-35 f4 lens, been using it all year and it’s solid! Always questioned if the 2.8 would be a great upgrade but watching this definitely makes me feel like it’s not. However, that new 15-35 2.8 IS RF Lens seems like a win!
The f4 really is a champ. The new RF looks great (aside from the price)!
If you mainly shoot landscape then go for the f/4, if you also shoot astro then go with the f/2.8.
Good advice 👍
Great comparison! Finally someone comparing the f4 vs the f2.8!
Ive been looking for this one for awhile! but i went with the f2.8 and im enjoying it so far
Great video. I like you picked the F4 and couldn't be happier.
It’s an awesome lens at a fair price 😎
The Enthusiasm Project Absolutely. Saved a $1000 to put towards other gear. Also the IS is perfect for vlogging content
You helped me make my mind . I just ordered the F4, thank you!
That's awesome to hear! It's such a great lens- I'm sure you'll love it!
I found a used 16-35 f/2.8 version 2 lens at my local camera shop for a little under $1000. It's definitely not as sharp as the version 3, and probably not as sharp as the f/4, but I really love the way it looks nonetheless. It's hard to go wrong with a Canon L-series lens
Absolutely. I've have my 24-105L for about 7 years, and it was at least 7 years old when I bought it used. It still works like new!
@@tombuck I just recently bought a used 24-105 v2 lens as well. Just an all around useful lens
vlogging on a 6d mk2 is OVERKILL - that is a camera that deserves time out in the field! Thank you for the review between the 2.8 and 4.0, definitely helped guide my purchase decision
Glad it helped!
I bought the f4 before the 2.8 version 3 came out because the version 2 wasn't as sharp as the f4, The IS helps a lot when freehanding, when using it for landscapes you are not going to use 2.8 or f4 anyways, glad I got the f4 no regrets. Switching over to the R5 or R6 and going to get the 2.8 version since it has IS, 15 a little wider and it is sharper than both EF.
The RF 15-35 really is an excellent lens. 🤤
Unless I am doing portraits, I am not too fussed about aperture. When I do street, landscaping, and architecture, I deliberately underexpose the image to save as much detail as possible. I keep it at F8 or above. This way, via Lightroom I can bring out those details. It just looks better than apposed to allowing the exposure to reduce the dept. The EF 16-35 IS F4 is one of my favorite lenses. I mainly shoot during day time. I hardly ever used this lens at F4 during day for street photography.
Man...is there any more of a thorough review than what you have offered us? I don't think so. The immediate swapping video images made it SO perfect to decide!! Thank you so very much. I am buying 2nd hand and only have owned 24-70 and other zoom lenses and some primes. Trying to decide now between 24-70 2.8 or this model you showed (2.8). Hmmm....!! Thanks again!!
I'm so glad it helped! The 24-70 is definitely a great lens too, and I hope to add one to my lineup someday.
The 2.8 is a superior lens for outdoor photography and landscaping, especially at lowlights situations!
what do you think as far sa sharpness goes compared to the f4? I do real estate photography and am looking to upgrade from my cannon ef 17-40 . I want something tac sharp and brilliant: D
I think for landscape you will anyway stop down for greater depth of field so that does not make any difference. Plus the is you get is a much better thing
Regards
Dear Tom, thank you for that review, this is the best review on youtube! I spent so much time to find it. Wish you all the best!
I really appreciate the kind words Sergei! Thank you! 🙏
Great comparison! I agree with you, that price gap would be a hard sell; especially when you have a camera that can easily handle that slight bump in ISO and the footage from the f4 looked so great (and the I.S. certainly doesn't hurt). 2.8 is nice, but maybe not $1000 nice!
My thoughts exactly. If the more expensive one were 1.8 or 1.4 it’d be a no brainer, but 2.8 vs 4 isn’t a HUGE difference.
I do not know, I think f4 is better in terms of color
Background blur also depends on where your focus points are .. you didn't talk about that setting. With a really near focus point you will get lots more background blur versus a distant focus point where you will get lesser background blur .. it is all relative to the focus point in question. In this case, you are are about 3 feet away from the lens and the wall behind you is not too far out for you to notice the background blur whether it is a 2.8 or a 4.0. If you were outdoors you will notice that the background video blur or bokeh in stills in a 2.8 is way better than a 4.0.
All very true. It would look totally different outdoors in a landscape setting.
Thanks for the review ;) As i expected, the f4 is more useful when you're a photographer and videomaker. I'm so excited to have this lens in my hand *-*
It’s a great one!
I just ordered this from eBay for $691 (shipping included). Hope I agree with you!
Great deal! 😮
I'm late to the party but this is exactly what I needed. Like most people, I am enamored by the f2.8 and wondered if it was worth the money. This video helped me eliminate the RF 15-35 and the f2.8 version but now I also want a Sigma 24mm f1.4.
The Sigma 24 is an unbelievable lens. Check canonpricewatch.com for lens prices (this sounds like an ad, but it's not, I promise).
@@tombuck Thanks for the tip, I'll be keeping my eye out!
I split the difference and got the new Sigma Art 14-24 f2.8 for $1400.
Also plz do a video about your light back there :)
Ooh, I’ve been curious about that Art lens! The light is a Dracast Silkray 800 that I borrowed to experiment with. It’s big, thin, bright, and nicely diffused. I like it so far 👍
I am also very curious about this Art lens? is it worth it? 14-24 is pretty dang wide
Sigma is a third party lens company that when spare part or repairs are needed they won't be available. Along time ago when I first tried a 28-235 image stabilized lens. I had an option in 1999 of Canon's first image stabilized 35mm lens in the world to use on my EOS 3 film camera. Or later sigma copied Canon's ideal. And I opted for the sigma 28 -135 f 3.5 /4 image stabilized. And after three years the auto focus stopped functioning andthe lens was discontonued so spare parts were no longer available. So repair was out of the question. I contacted sigma they said they could sell me a replacement lens of a different zoom range. So it was then I purchased the Canon version and I'm still using that lens on Canon digital bodies. So buy Nikon,Sony or Canon you won't be let down.
And ultra wide lenses at ranges greater than 16mm is very hard to construct and get a good image that's why my Canon 11-24 mm f4 costed so much it took Canon years to prefect that lens and did they ever accomplish that, it's tack sharp at all settings. Like the Canon 16-35 mm f4 i.s.
CANON ULTRA WIDE ZOOMS ARE FAR SUPERIOR TO ALL LENS MANUFACTURES AND COST LESS THAN NIKON.
@@forsterl.stewart414 is f 2.8 lens substantially sharper than the F4? I do real estate photography and I'm looking to upgrade. I just want something extremely sharp and brilliant: D
I was looking for a new wide angle first looking at the sigma 18-35 f1.8. But now ending up deciding between the f4 and f2.8 the IS really is the biggest selling point imo. Really nice video as well!
Glad it helped! IS is definitely a great feature.
i think the difference with the two lenses if you take night, astro photography go for the f/2.8 i went for the f/4 version personally the image stability is a must for me
The IS is an awesome feature. And long exposures work very well with f4 for sure.
Video @10:00 - "I can Stop that Down all the way to" - Just a minor point. You don't stop-down to f/2.8 (wide-open). You stop-down to f/22 (smallest aperture) etc.
One Opens-Up the aperture to let's say f/2.8...
True- I definitely misspoke there.
Great video. LOVE the real life comparison. Your videos are so thorough.
Thank you sir! I’m glad it was helpful!
Hey, great video. I personally don't see a huge difference between both of them for video. Probably you can get better pictures with the 2.8 but for video I think the 4f is better, especially since the 2.8 f doesn't have image stabilisation .. (which surprised me btw 🤷🏻♀️) and it's heavier..
I really love the f4! It’s been two years and it’s still great 😎
Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you for putting this up!
You’re welcome! Glad it was helpful!
Great comparison, especially keeping it nice, simple and with real world samples. Just what I needed to make up my mind, thanks. F4 for me, saved the $1k towards another prime 👌
Glad it helped! I sure you’ll love the f4- it’s a remarkable lens!
The Enthusiasm Project liked and subscribed btw. Look forward to seeing new videos and catching up on the old ones :)
I came here for the image shart. Lol this video helped me very much. Got the f4. Thanks!
Great video Tom 👍,
What do you think at the moment 16-35mm f4 IS And the 16-35mm f2.8 mark ii are under the same price which one do you recommend ?
You can't go wrong either way. If you want better low light and slightly more shallow depth of field, go for the 2.8. If you want the benefit of stabilization or plan to do a lot of landscape photos, the f4 is terrific. And, for what it's worth, I like that the f4 has a 77mm diameter (it works with all the filters I already had).
@@tombuck Just bought the 2.8 mark ii
And it’s great 😁, thanks a lot Tom
keep up the good work 💪
Ah man, this video is SUPER helpful for me right now. I stupidly got a ton of dust on my 17-40 a few months back and am looking to upgrade. I think you just talked me into 2.8...gah!
It’s a good excuse, especially if you’ve already had an f4!
I would say though that most canon DSLR's don't have inbuilt image stabilisation like the 6d Mk II or the mirrorless R5 you're using. It almost looks as if the f/4 is not working well (in sync together) with the inbuilt stabilisation of the R5. It looks a little shakier than the R5 working alone with f/2.8... hmmm I wonder if it's any better with the 6D Mk II as it's designed primarily for a DSLR? If so with the mirrorless then a non-image stabilised 16-35 would be the better option..🤔I suppose for filming that would be the answer, but if it's for general photography, can it be counted on that the f/2.8 actually has better sharpness and depth of field significant enough for the price increase?.... Great real world review btw 👌detailed and certainly helping me make a decision.
Glad it was helpful! Just to clarify- I’m using the original R, which only has electronic stabilization. 👍
Awesome video and explanation.
You answered the burning question I had for sometime. Thank you.
Really happy to hear that!
Great comparison. I came to the same conclusion and love the f4 version. Awesome video!
Thanks Tyler! It’s such a great lens.
Great Video once again...
I use the 16-35 F4 as well but again I do CZcams reviews and vlog as well
You could always do talking head vids with the 50mm 1.8 for Extreme Boka...lol but lose the wider background of course!
That’s the tough part because I wanted the wider field of view since I often have stuff to show and I usually talk with my hands like a maniac. The F4 is a beautiful lens for sure!
Canon 16-35 mm f4 image stabilized lens brought state of the art sharpness to Canon's ultra wide lenses. Only the newer 11-24 f4 or the 16-35 f2.8 miii are as sharp but neither of these lenses have image stabilization. And all other ultra wides are inferior. Check out the mtf charts of any of these lense against the 16- 35mm f2.8, 16-35 f2.8 mii. Or the 17-40mm f4. I use both the 11-24 f4 and the 16-35 mm f4 i.s. for all my archetecture and landscape as well as commercial work. The f4 version is as sharp plus image stabilized and is less expensive as the 2.8 miii version.
More cost effective and one stop.of light loss is not that important even in interiors for me. You have the image stabilization option if you don't have your tripod. But I always have a tripod in my kit bag.
I didn’t know it was such an upgrade to sharpness- thanks for the info.
I have the 17 to 40 mm. Do you think it would be that much more of an upgrade? I'm debating whether or not I should just upgrade my lens or go to a full on mirrorless set up.
I am with you 100% I have been going back and forth, but I use my camera primarily for video so IS helps on my 6d2. Plus at 16-35 2.8 it’s hard to even get a super shallow DOF because it’s so wide. Definitely think you are right on with this, not worth double the price in my eyes. Plus I shoot real estate as well so I never go below f7 doing that anyway lol 😂 I’m with you on the sigma art series as well 👌🏻 excellent glass and beautiful bokeh. Thanks for making this! 👍🏻😎
Glad it helped! Love the 2.8, but that price is really prohibitive.
2.8 and 4 are too little different. Plus IS is a bonus for me as I don’t use tripod that much. lol and then…not much chances to use 2.8 so light depth.
sir you dont need another filter because you have different lens diameter, all you need is an adaptor ring that fits to your step up or step down filter size. the chinese made a lot of this adaptor rings so the price went down dramatically to $5 a piece for aluminum or the whole set if you want a plastic ring.
Very true!
Just curious, did you consider the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art ? It is much cheaper than the Canon L lens and at an F1.8 it will give you more of the shallow depth of field you mentioned you were looking for in the F2.8. I am considering it for my next glass purchase over the Canon lenses.
It’s a really great lens, but doesn’t work with full frame cameras. If I had a crop camera, I would absolutely own one. 👍
@@tombuck Forgot you were shooting on the 6D, shutter carnage if you tried to use the Sigma on that!
I’ve since gotten the EOS R too, which does have a crop mode to accommodate EF-S lenses, but I’m too much of a full frame addict.
I am definitely going for Sigma 1.4 after seeing this video.
I’ve officially had it for a year and it’s been on my camera 90% of that time. Such an incredible lens!
I have the sigma art 18 to 35 and 50 to 100 1.8 for crop sensor and they're amazing. I use the 18 to 35 on my Canon EOS R all the time. Sigma is making amazing lenses these days
Does the 18-35 work well on the R?
@@Savage1776_ hows the auto focus on that? Ive read some reviews saying the auto focus is really slow and bad which is keeping me from buying it
That sigma 24 looks awesome for this video. I was looking at a lightly used 16-35 2.8L version 1 today for $500. Still not sure if it's a good deal.
That sounds like a pretty sweet deal. But yes, I absolutely love the 24mm.
Thanks for the video. Maybe do another video with RF14-35mm f4L IS vs RF15-35mm f2.8L IS. That would be trickier as both have IS.
The 14-35 is interesting, and the f4 vs 2.8 comparison is always tricky too.
Good review. I think you're nuts to have IS on during walk-around video blogging...you actually bounce around in frame more than the non IS if you watch close. If you really want good "gimbal" action...get a gimbal and save the $$$ and you'll be wow-ed.
Great video! I’m trying to make a decision on these lenses. Lol idk what I’ll do.
Dude, lens choices are some of the hardest choices. 😬
With a metabones speedbooster on my bmpcc4k, I'll get 2.6 out of F/4.
This was a great video! Simple and to the point! thank you
Thanks so much! I really appreciate that!
Im glad i found this. I like your art lens better.
Great stuff man, I was thinking about making a video about why the 16-35 2.8 is currently my favorite lens. I might steal some of your info :) Thank you for posting this.
Haha, steal away! I’d love to hear your perspective as a 2.8 owner.
Great review. I’m looking at the16-35mm for landscapes so I’d seldom open up to a wide aperture anyway. I can’t see $1000 value in the wider aperture.
It’s a great landscape lens. I recommend checking out Thomas Heston’s channel. He’s a landscape photographer who does amazing work with the 16-35 f4. 😎
SUPER helpful review - thanks Tom!
My pleasure!
@@tombuck I really enjoy your videos. You do such a thorough job, and your style is really engaging, relaxed and authentic. I am learning alot from your channel. BTW I like the podcast you and Peter Lindgren have started as well. Thanks for acknowledging my comment, and keep up the great work! Mike
Thanks for the kind words! I really appreciate and I’m glad you’re liking the videos/podcast.
Bloody good thumbnail, that. 👏👏👏👍
Thanks Stephen! I always struggle with thumbnails...
Woo，that's a great show. maybe I will buy sigma 24 F1.4 first for the vlog! thank you.
Thanks, I’m sure you’ll love it 👍
@@tombuck I got it! It's great!!
I need something wide and fast for my c200 and eosr, stumbled onto your channel while comparing lenses... love your reviews! very helpful!! :) still stuck on a lens though lol, thinking sigma 14-24 2.8. . . fast as you're gonna get i think (for a full frame zoom?)
Hey! The Sigma 14-24 is probably the widest/fastest lens you’re going to get (at least without totally breaking the bank). I did a review on it if you haven’t seen it- I really like it.
Great review and nicely done with those comparison shots. Though, for your studio shots that SIGMA 24mm (f1.4 - Art Lens) is looking really nice. Has some really nice bokeh. Like yourself I'm looking for a lens with image stabilization and that can give me some nice bokeh as well. That sigma's looking pretty sweet but all my gear is Canon so not switching manufacturers for obvious reasons. Looking for a nice Canon lens for video mostly that I can use for the majority of my indoor product shots and has some nice bokeh to it. This was helpful....I think I need to keep looking.
The sigma really is outstanding, and with the EOS R's autofocus, the 1.4 aperture is really usable. Of course there's always the Canon 24 1.4, but that's a bit out of my budget. I'm a fan of wide lenses with wide apertures. 👍
This was very helpful,thank you. Other examples you could have shown is by taking photos outdoors so we can gauge the difference in sharpness, bokeh,vignetting,chromatic aberration and image quality. Still, your video is good for those doing blogs and videos.
Thanks! I do focus mostly on video personally, so that's the perspective I took with the video. Anecdotally, I can say that the 2.8 is sharper, but I don't know if it's enough of a difference to justify the price.
@@tombuck thnks for replying.stay safe👌
I know you said the f4 is more worth it but would you take the f/2.8 if you were able to find it for only $100 more than the f/4?
Yes, that’d be a great deal!
awesome, I think your 24 art is really really good for talking heads like this.
I love it! It's my favorite focal length for sure.
Amazing video, thank you. Appreciate it.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you! This is exactly the info I was looking for. I'm fairly new, and would like a lens good for both video and photo. I'm considering the 2.8 L ii (not the iii) vs the f4. I didn't feel the 2.8 iii gave that much better image stabilization in your video...can you please give me your opinion? I'm trying to decide if the f4 would be better due to the IS, or if the 2.8lens would hold its value more and be better , even though just 1 stop. when I last looked I think the 2.8 ii is about $200-$300 more than the f4 with IS.
If you can find one, the version II is a great deal, and I'd probably go with the 2.8 for that price. I don't think 1 extra stop is worth $1000, but I think it's definitely worth $200(ish).
Just found your channel thanks to CZcams recommandations (you got a new subscriber ^^) and this video is so helpful because I have this exact question but for a 24-70 ... the thing is, I use an APS-C (and probably for a while until they release an Eos R mark 2 ^^) and the 2.8 would help me for that but I don't have very big production project etc that makes me wonder if I shouldn't "upgrade" for an F4 in the beginning that would anyway bring me way more quality .. And this quality could help to reach bigger projects that would involve even better gear ...
Hey, glad you’re here! I think the f4 will work great in a crop sensor camera. That being said, I’m a believer that you should always buy the best you can afford (without going into debt or selling a kidney).
The 2.8 is a better lens, but I personally don’t think it’s $1000 better. You could get a second lens like a super sharp prime for less money.
@@tombuck Thanks for the quick answer ! In your video, like you said I honestly don't see a gain worth $1000 ... except for ISO gain but ... probably cheaper to buy a small light or something to balance that ...
And I have a 50 1.8 that I could use on the side 🤔 I wanted the 24-70 2.8 to shoot weddings with only this lens but ... yeah ... after I saw your video I'll probably go with the F4 ! Thanks so much
Glad it helped! To be fair, the 24-70 is wonderful for weddings and events.
Great comparison, very useful for me as I am deciding between these two lens. Will you do a review for 24-105 f4 as well? Many thanks!
I have the original 24-105, but I can borrow a Mark II and compare them. Now that’s a lens I wish was 2.8.
Like many people says before, thanks for this video. Helps me too👍
I’m glad to hear it!
Great video - good to know that the difference between F4 & 2.8 is not that significant. Have you looked into the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art DC HSM Lens for Canon?
It’s a wonderfully lens and I use it regularly at my work. But it’s mainly designed for crop sensor cameras, and I prefer full frame 👍
@@tombuck Very good point Tom - I missed that! I am new to video recording for CZcams. Trying to get a good shot of me playing bass with my studio in the background... I will order the Sigma 24mm F1.4 for full frame - your video is among the best I have seen to really show what it does with great comparisons. So you have not yet found a fine full frame prime lens wider than 20mm for aperture larger than F2 that would work with the Canon EOS R and be reasonably priced?
20mm is about as far as you can go within reason. But on full frame That’s very very wide.
The 2.8 doesn’t need images stabilization, because of the extra stop of light. The 2.8 for filming would have been worth the extra money.
Really love this!
Its a really great video! are you a photographer?
Went with the 2.8
Very well explained
I'd like to see a bokeh ball comparison tho. I still purchased the F4 thanks to your video since I bought it for landscapes photography use. Since landscapes are made between f8 - 11 I think I made the right choice going F4.
For landscapes, it's a fantastic choice. If you haven't seen it, Thomas Heaton made a whole video on how he uses the F4 for landscapes and gets outstanding results.
@@tombuck I'll check this out right now !! I've seen in another video that the f4 also has kind of more contrasts. Which is also good for landscapes !
@@tombuck man, thank you for giving me this channel. I learn so much out of it !
Nice job..... Good comperising 👍👍👍
I found the 16-35mm 2.8 (1st gen) and the f4 used at the exact same price in my local area. Not sure if the optical quality would be as sharp as the newer f4 but the 2.8 would be great for some extra bokeh/indoors. quite difficult to pick one between these 2
I found both f2.8 used for 800 and it is in excellent condition. For that price would you still choose the f4 over the f2.8? I also have the EOS R which has Digital IS, ....does that help with overall choosing the f2.8?
If price is the same, I see no reason not to go for the 2.8. The R’s built in stabilization is really good, despite what most reviews say.
@@tombuck the f2.8 II not the III. So for the price I should get the 2.8 ii instead of the f4? If so thank you for your help
Loved your video! I’m trying to buy a new lens …. And my goal is to buy a lens that can be used in many different ways/purposes. Mostly for photography :) would the f4 be a good one? Thank you for your time!!!
If you’re mainly going for photography and you don’t planning on shooting low light with short exposure time, the f4 should be great. 👍
I just heard the Sigma has a new 16mm f1.4 for canon mirrorless! So I don’t know if I should get the sigma 24 with my speedbooster Or the new sigma 16mm
I heard about that one too! It’s a tough choice. I still like this one because it’s easy to swap between the R and 6D II.
@@tombuck for sure. The fact that it is not a huge lens. You could rotate that lens on the R and 6D II. That is a huge bonus in my book.
Where could I find a desk like yours??
It’s a Husky work bench from Home Depot 👍
Thanks for tha great review you solve my confusion😊😊😊😊
Fantastic! I’m glad it helped out!
Sample shoots and footage would be great
super helpful video. cheers!
Happy to hear that! 👍
My vote is for F4. No IS is big deal for me.
Nowadays, modern camera can handle higher iso.
Yeah modern camera like EOS R6 Mark II have IBIS but from I've watched it's not that good.
Just watched the potato version of this video where he reads a comment from you in his review. And you've got a review/diffs video too. I like it, stay on that hustle and glad you went more tech and applications comparisons than the jet's hair torching video but both are exceptionally useful.
Considering I want to shoot bmx and have noticed my 6dii plus 70-200 2.8 is ridiculously better than my 80d and 10-18 (i know, apples and oranges) but I may have to rent the 2.8 and 4 to see which works better for my video needs.
Haha, I was very shocked to see my name pop up in that video! But yeah, if you can try each out, that’s the best way to decide. The 2.8 is a beautiful lens, but I’ve been more than happy with the f4 👍
@@tombuck Thank you for the reply! I went with the f4 and love the improvement. Well worth it and I don't need to buy new filters so I'm happy. You're internet famous! Bask in the glory hahah thank you again!
Gread video, really helped a lot :)
Awesome! Hopefully you get the lens that's right for you 👍
@@tombuck Yeah, I'll get the f4. That's a good solution for me
Great video Dude!!! if i had watched this last year i might have gotten the f4. i did get the 2.8 and i love it but i would still like the $1K
I guess that’s better than getting the 4 and wishing you had the 2.8- they’re both wonderful lenses!
@@tombuck I just bought a 24-105 f4L ii. so i should be ok for most purposes except that both are a bit heavy. i am beginning to learn the benefits of lighter weight equipment haha...
It’s tough to balance features and size, figuratively and literally.
This is a great video man! Thanks and keep up the good content!
Today's camera do so well with high ISO, f/2.8 is not worth it unless you do a lot of professional low light work. Spend that extra money on more lens.
Sorry but it's been 4 days searching how to cut that time bar thing in your video. Can you please share that.. My second time seeing such, first was of epidemic. I really like this cut style in progress bar.
Are you talking about the markers that show up in the progress bar of the CZcams player? It’s a new feature CZcams added this week. If you put time stamps in the description of your video, it automatically marks them on the progress bar. I really like it 👍
@@tombuck that easily?? Thankyou sir.. Subbed from 🇳🇵..
correction: Sorry but as you said youtube added this feature this week but you started doing this 9 months ago and that video was Canon eos r-top 5 underrated features, I put time markers on description but it doesn't do..maybe there's a subscription count like less than 5k get lost or something..lol..I wanted to do this in my wife's fitness channel so it would have been easier..you know..
The upload date shouldn’t matter as long as the time stamps are in the description, so this could show up on older videos. I’m not sure how they decide which accounts to use it on. It might be a new feature that’s being tested randomly. 🤷🏻♂️
@@tombuck oh yea, so sorry, maybe this corona thing messed up my brain..lol..anyways thankyou for your time..3840*1920 rock and this progress bar surely rocks.
Great video
Thanks!
I feel your sigma is better then those canon lenses
I agree actually. These offer a wider filed of view and the ability to zoom, but I like the Sigma's image quality more overall.
Very helpful, thanks for sharing. How is the autofocus noise on the 16-35 2.8 III? I have the version II and it is horrible. Lots of rumble and rattle which is impossible to get around with a hotshoe mic.
The III isn’t bad. You can hear it, but I don’t think it’d cause many issues. I haven’t heard the II myself, so I can’t make a direct comparison.
@@tombuckThat's good to know, thanks. How does it compare to the f4?
I plan on buying one of these lenses
I think I'm gonna buy either the first one for 440 used, or the mark II for like 970 used. Would you reccomend the first or second version of this lens?
The Mark II is going to be a bit better if you can swing it with your budget. Image quality is terrific on both, but the II has updated autofocus, which is nice.
@@tombuck Do you think it's worth buying the mark II?
Absolutely!
@@tombuck Thanks for replying.
@@tombuck Would you go for the 2.8 mk II or the F4 for shooting video in a small room?
why wouldnt you get the sigma 18-35mm 1.8? only 2mm differance but a whole stop lower.
It’s not designed for full frame cameras, but is an outstanding lens.
18-55mm the winner.
Thanks.
Great review. Definitely do not see much of a difference bw the 2.8 and f4 in terms of bokeh.
There’s a difference, but really thought it’d be more noticeable. Both are great lenses!
Noticeable brightness with F2.8 compared with F4-but $1000 USD of brightness? That's tough for me to justify for a hobby (that I've already sunk $4K).
It's definitely an expesnive hobby. Having used both side by side quite a bit, I think the f4 is definitely the better value is you don't absolutely need the 2.8.
@@tombuckThanks for the feedback. Btw the lens used for this video is a beauty.
Thank you, great video. I am more than a beginer and i am so confused..can i set 16-35mm F4 lense to shoot at 24mm or i have to buy 24mm prime? I cannot buy both of them..i want to shoot product videos like you..plus i want to shoot outdoor cinematic videos...please can someone help me..i will buy sony a7iii. Btw great channel, videos and everything... Sorry for bad english.
You can set a 16-35mm to 24, but it won’t have the same shallow depth of field as a prime lens, so you won’t get backgrounds that are quite as blurry. Just something to be aware of. 👍
@@tombuck thank you so much..please tell me just one more thing..what size of ND filter do i need for 35mm lense? Or 24mm? I am very confused when it comes to numbers...
It depends on the lens. Each lens will have its filter diameter printed on the front- it is a different number than focal length (so a 24mm lens could have a 77mm filter size).
Gracias amigo, me hiciste ahorrar 1000 dolares; voy a comprar f4. Tenia muchas dudas y con tu consejo se despejaron.