Upgrade my 16-35 2.8 mk1 to what?

[TareqPhoto]

Hi,

I am looking for changing or upgrading my lens EF 16-35mm 2.8 mk1 to newer model of UWA, but in the past there were almost 2 or 3 but now there are many, at the end i narrowed my options to 3 instead of 6 for example, what will be your recommendation/suggestion if you are in my place?

1. Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 mk2
2. Canon EV 16-35mm f4
3. Tamron 15-35 VC

I also thinking about Tokina 16-28 but i feel it is not a good option to consider so i passed it.

I wish to get Canon EF 11-24 but it is very expensive lens so i didn't include it, i don't want to spend something above $1500, also i will sell my 16-35 mk1 first but even with its sale i can't buy that 11-24 yet unless i can sell my lens with at least $1200.

So what is your recommendation?

 

[arthurbikemad]

I have the mk2 and love it, I also have the 11-24 and feel they both have a place in my bag, I like the 2.8 and easy filter option, also I use the Mk2 when it's dusty and dirty as the 11-24 is a vaunrable lens, the Mk2 gets a lot of stick online but I feel it's better than what I read.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I have the mk2 and love it, I also have the 11-24 and feel they both have a place in my bag, I like the 2.8 and easy filter option, also I use the Mk2 when it's dusty and dirty as the 11-24 is a vaunrable lens, the Mk2 gets a lot of stick online but I feel it's better than what I read.

Cool, i can get that MK2 cheap if i sell my mk1, also f4 version is not that much expensive, but i want f2.8, i prefer 2.8 over IS, most of the time i like to blur more than going slower shutter speed with IS for that stop difference, but maybe i miss something with new IS technology over older f2.8 performance.

Filters is not a problem for me, i have 2 or 3 lenses that are non filter thread but i have special filter holders designed for them, both mk2 and f4 lenses are fine with standard filter threads, but 15-30 is not and there is a filter solution for it.

I saw many many landscapes and wide scene shots done with 16-35 f2.8II and i like those shots, i didn't see many with f4 as maybe it is new or not many have this lens yet, wish to see more Tamron lens shots for comparison of IQ.

 

[arthurbikemad]

I agree with you, I have no need for IS with the 16-35 or the 11-24 come to that, many say the f4 is sharper but I've never felt that my Mk2 is soft, even wide open the corners look good, CA wise trees/branches etc look clean so I am very happy with the Mk2, when I got the 11-24 I thought I'd sell the Mk2 but it has its uses, also I've shot some great Astro with it, coma seems ok etc, again I am happy...

 

[TareqPhoto]

I agree with you, I have no need for IS with the 16-35 or the 11-24 come to that, many say the f4 is sharper but I've never felt that my Mk2 is soft, even wide open the corners look good, CA wise trees/branches etc look clean so I am very happy with the Mk2, when I got the 11-24 I thought I'd sell the Mk2 but it has its uses, also I've shot some great Astro with it, coma seems ok etc, again I am happy...

Good that you are happy with it, i am or was happy with 16-35, but my new cameras giving it that age sign, so wanted to have something newer, mk2 is still newer than mk1 even they are both way old and years out, but mk2 shots i see are proving that this lens is still strong even with new cameras, maybe it will be better with my new cameras than mk1, also i don't care how much sharper that f4, mostly corner sharpness which is sometimes cropped.

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

If you use it for landscapes dont you close down anyway? I fancy the F4 for handheld at 35mm for street and 16-24 for landscapes.guess it depends what you are using it for,getting the F4 tuesday.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

f/4 IS is fantastic. It is miles ahead of anything they've made before.

 

[TareqPhoto]

If you use it for landscapes dont you close down anyway? I fancy the F4 for handheld at 35mm for street and 16-24 for landscapes.guess it depends what you are using it for,getting the F4 tuesday.

Yes, i stop or close down, but it is not for landscapes, i use it for portraits and groups indoors high or low light.

 

[TareqPhoto]

f/4 IS is fantastic. It is miles ahead of anything they've made before.

Yes, i did hear/read that, and i included in my choices, but i still feel i need f2.8 more than IS, but many said they liked that IS with f4 and don't miss that f2.8

 

[odd jim]

Why do you want to "upgrade"?

The difference would be very minor, if not even noticeable from the options listed. Just because a lens is newer, it doesn't mean it will make any difference to your shots.

From what you've said here;

"....but my new cameras giving it that age sign, so wanted to have something newer...." It seems like you're spending money for the sake of it (and doesn't make much sense!)

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Yes, i did hear/read that, and i included in my choices, but i still feel i need f2.8 more than IS, but many said they liked that IS with f4 and don't miss that f2.8

I felt f/2.8 was unusable, nor was f/4. New lens is happy to be wide open and offers IS. It's a nobrainer.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Why do you want to "upgrade"?

The difference would be very minor, if not even noticeable from the options listed. Just because a lens is newer, it doesn't mean it will make any difference to your shots.

From what you've said here;

"....but my new cameras giving it that age sign, so wanted to have something newer...." It seems like you're spending money for the sake of it (and doesn't make much sense!)

And what i meant by that is when i use newer camera it somehow solve the age problem, but this alone means newer lens will give more better quality, i had 70-200 f2.8 IS mk1, on all cameras were some kind of soft but acceptable, better was on 1DX, but when i upgraded mk1 to mk2 it was completely new level, so much sharper, even color is better to my eyes, so mk2 showed that difference, same when i used my friend 24-70 2.8mkII and my 24-70 mk1, it was hard to go with mk1 over mkII from what i see, so even my 16-35 2.8 mk1 is getting softer and nearly just good acceptable and not so much great in sharpness or contrast or whatever, i am sure you and many will say to edit with photoshop or send for service or whatever, but why people buying newer lenses or mkII for example if there is not differences?!!!

 

[TareqPhoto]

I felt f/2.8 was unusable, nor was f/4. New lens is happy to be wide open and offers IS. It's a nobrainer.

From the post above you, it shouldn't give noticeable difference, even with IS version.

 

[odd jim]

And what i meant by that is when i use newer camera it somehow solve the age problem, but this alone means newer lens will give more better quality, i had 70-200 f2.8 IS mk1, on all cameras were some kind of soft but acceptable, better was on 1DX, but when i upgraded mk1 to mk2 it was completely new level, so much sharper, even color is better to my eyes, so mk2 showed that difference, same when i used my friend 24-70 2.8mkII and my 24-70 mk1, it was hard to go with mk1 over mkII from what i see, so even my 16-35 2.8 mk1 is getting softer and nearly just good acceptable and not so much great in sharpness or contrast or whatever, i am sure you and many will say to edit with photoshop or send for service or whatever, but why people buying newer lenses or mkII for example if there is not differences?!!!

But what's the "age problem"?? I have bodies and lenses 10 years old that still give me brilliant results (as well as new stuff).

People are buying the newer variations most likely as they don't *already* have a 70-200, or a 16-35. Not because they are going from a mk1 to a 2 etc etc. When they have the choice, it makes sense to go for the current slightly upgraded model.

Most people who own the very good already mk1 versions don't buy the mk2 version because "it's newer" as they are happy with what they already have, and the cost of "upgrading" to essentially the same lens (unless you pixel peep) simply isn't worth it. But if your lens has gone soft, somehow then yes, get it serviced, it'll cost you far less!

Some people do buy each version as it pops up of course, but not many. Doesn't make sense to change each time unless you're in the business or have won the lottery and have big cabinets.

Maybe it's just me but it seems like you're going to spend hundreds of pounds for really no benefit, shot for shot. Would you notice the difference between the mk1 and 2 70-200 f/2.8 on a canvass print? Would that difference be worth £5-600 extra?

It's not a criticism, each to their own and if you can afford it great

 

[TareqPhoto]

But what's the "age problem"?? I have bodies and lenses 10 years old that still give me brilliant results (as well as new stuff).

People are buying the newer variations most likely as they don't *already* have a 70-200, or a 16-35. Not because they are going from a mk1 to a 2 etc etc. When they have the choice, it makes sense to go for the current slightly upgraded model.

Most people who own the very good already mk1 versions don't buy the mk2 version because "it's newer" as they are happy with what they already have, and the cost of "upgrading" to essentially the same lens (unless you pixel peep) simply isn't worth it. Big your lens has gone soft, somehow then yes, get it serviced, it'll cost you far less!

Some people do buy each version as it pops up of course, but not many. Doesn't make sense unless you're in the business or have one the lottery and have big cabinets.

Maybe it's just me but it seems like you're going to spend hundreds of pounds for really no benefit, shot for shot. Would you notice the difference between the mk1 and 2 70-200 f/2.8 on a canvass print? Would that difference be worth £5-600 extra?

It's not a criticism, each to their own and if you can afford it great

Well, thank you very much for your post.

But i just have one comment, when i upgrade from mk1 to mk2 when i sell my mk1 or older gear then i don't need to spend something around £5-600, most what i spend when i sell my mk1 or older version then to buy newer is around £1-300, in fact i got a price for my 16-35 mk1 that is nearly £120 less than mkII and almost same price as 16-35 f4, so where is the lose here?

And about the service, i am sorry to tell you that any service in my country is not less than £3-500, i remember when i sent my 24-70 mk1 for repair because a filter stuck on its front element they charged me £250, and when this lens dropped and the mount broken i sent it again and they quoted me for about £600 and i left it there since 2 years as i didn't want to spend that much just for repair.

Anyway, it sounds upgrading is only for necessary reason not for want reason with you and some members, i will see if it is really worthy, and i don't upgrade always or all the time, this lens is serving me since 2006 and i didn't replace it yet, many sold it even when they bought it after me during 2008-2009, and somehow i am this type of peon who like to get new things when possible, sure if i can't afford i will never upgrade or think about newer, i did upgrade from Canon 1D mkII N then to 1D MarkIII then to 1DX, and not me only who saw the difference but even my friends saw the differences even without prints or big screens.

 

[odd jim]

Well, thank you very much for your post.

But i just have one comment, when i upgrade from mk1 to mk2 when i sell my mk1 or older gear then i don't need to spend something around £5-600, most what i spend when i sell my mk1 or older version then to buy newer is around £1-300, in fact i got a price for my 16-35 mk1 that is nearly £120 less than mkII and almost same price as 16-35 f4, so where is the lose here?

And about the service, i am sorry to tell you that any service in my country is not less than £3-500, i remember when i sent my 24-70 mk1 for repair because a filter stuck on its front element they charged me £250, and when this lens dropped and the mount broken i sent it again and they quoted me for about £600 and i left it there since 2 years as i didn't want to spend that much just for repair.

Anyway, it sounds upgrading is only for necessary reason not for want reason with you and some members, i will see if it is really worthy, and i don't upgrade always or all the time, this lens is serving me since 2006 and i didn't replace it yet, many sold it even when they bought it after me during 2008-2009, and somehow i am this type of peon who like to get new things when possible, sure if i can't afford i will never upgrade or think about newer, i did upgrade from Canon 1D mkII N then to 1D MarkIII then to 1DX, and not me only who saw the difference but even my friends saw the differences even without prints or big screens.

I agree there are improvements, but far more so with bodies than lenses, where technical improvements are abound, especially these days.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I agree there are improvements, but far more so with bodies than lenses, where technical improvements are abound, especially these days.

I see, honestly forums are always confusing, people suggest to invest or upgrade lenses as they are the main quality element, others said buy best lens and never look back and only bodies are coming and going and needed to be upgraded, and some others said that many new cameras can't resolve older lenses so it needs new optics for higher quality improvements or sensor issue or whatever, so it left us with what to upgrade and when or which is to choose out of many options if upgrade is needed/necessary.