Canon Lens VS Canon Lens :: 16-35mm SHOOTOUT

This is a Canon 16-35 millimeter zoom

lens

and this, well, is another Canon 16-35 millimeter zoom

lens

. This lens is $1,000 and this lens is $2,000, so what's the difference? This lens has a maximum aperture of f28 and this lens has a maximum aperture of f/4, this one has optical image stabilization, well it's one stop brighter so you don't need it. In this video we are going to compare two of the best lenses in the Canon line because I was very curious and Frankly, they are both very impressive. Let's dive into all the details, but first I want to congratulate our sponsor today.

We are the amazing people at squarespace.com. Squarespace is the all-inclusive. -A solution to creating a beautiful portfolio website or online store building website is as easy as taking one of their award-winning templates and customizing everything in the drag and drop interface if you can drag a folder of images to a website . browser, you can create a website, visit Squarespace today for a free trial, and if you decide to write for yourself, use offer code AOP at checkout, saving you an additional ten percent. Once again, that offer code is AOP and I want to give a special shout out. and thanks to Squarespace for sponsoring another episode of the art of photography, so in this video we are going to compare in a little

shootout

the 16 to 35 millimeter zoom lenses from the Canon line, this is the 16 to 35 millimeter F 2.8.

Version 3, which at the time I'm shooting is the latest version and I'm going to compare it to the 16 to 35 millimeter f/4 lens, which is one stop less capable of what this lens will do, otherwise they are practically the same. Same thing, and this one has optical image stabilization. Both lenses are configured with three aspherical and two ultra-dispersion elements. The f 2.8 lens features 16 elements in 11 groups and the f4 version of this lens features 16 elements in 12 groups. The range and versatility. of these two lenses is extremely impressive at longer focal lengths, both lenses become extremely sharp even when shooting wide open when focusing at closer distances, although the depth of field is much more prominent and each lens starts to show a little depth of unique character.

The field will obviously be less prominent at the wider ends of these lenses, so if you shoot at 16 millimeters compared to when you shoot at 35 millimeters, it becomes much more obvious. I have some RAW files available to download for channel sponsors and If you would like to sponsor this channel you can get access to all the sample files I use in these videos. Just click the sponsor button below this video to learn more. The F 2.8 version of this lens will give you a shallower view. depth of field, but we're really just talking about one stop and the interesting thing is that when you compare both lenses, I found that the specular highlights I'm talking about, the out-of-focus areas, look a little nicer at f/4 aperture even when both lenses are set to f/4, the f4 version, the lens and it's worth noting also maintains contrast a little better, although some vignetting is seen, here's the deal, all of this can be compensated for in post production , but I thought this. might be interesting for those of you who like to get things right on camera.

I think this will also clearly come down to personal taste once you go down beyond 5.6 or so, both lenses are extremely close in terms of image quality. extremely well handled on both lens designs, in fact I had to work quite hard to achieve excess flare but when you do it's actually an interesting effect and the reflections are really nice, it's actually a bit difficult for me . I'll tell you which one I liked more than the other because for the most part I enjoyed shooting with each of them so much that I remembered to switch lenses to get some comparison shots and if you shoot with wide angle lenses, they are both impressive and two of the most nice ones I've used in this focal range.

One thing that might be a bargain for some people is that the F 2.8 is noticeably larger than the f4. I didn't find it cumbersome, but if you are going to use these. for street photography and I will be walking for long periods of time that could be a problem the f4 will be my winner here but that stop can be a big difference for certain people and if you shoot in low light and you know exactly who you are and you probably already You know, even if I had both lenses, I'd probably use the f4 version more often.

It has optical image stabilization if you need it with slow shutter speeds and for me the difference was reduced. at those wider apertures at distances closer to my eyes, I just like the depth of field reproduction a little better, the contrast was slightly better for my taste, the F 2.8 is a fantastic lens, but you'll essentially pay twice the price. To get one more point of light, one of the main reasons I was particularly interested in looking at these two Canon 16-35 millimeter zooms is actually the way I make these videos now, when they view me from this camera angle , I have a small team. that I use and I normally use this lens which is a Zeiss Batis 25 millimeter f2 prime lens.

This lens is amazing. I love this lens, but it has a fixed focal length. I have an 18 millimeter and I can change it if I want. to vary the camera angles upwards. Look, sometimes I like to zoom in or if I have something really important to tell you, I'll zoom in for dramatic effect. Either way, it's a technique that you can use to create a little bit of interest, especially when you have a camera angle shot for a good portion of a video, so that's a technique that I want to use and instead of changing these lenses, I want to be able to just zoom in and do my edits and the other thing that's great is being able to use manual focus which doesn't focus with cables, so many lenses that come out today these manufacturers want to focus them with cables, which is a electronic and very difficult to work with and for this particular setup I now prefer manual focus.

Another thing I noticed when I started testing these two lenses and this might blow your mind right now, we're filming. This is Canon. This is the f4 version of this lens that I am using and that you are seeing me filmed with. Right now this is the 2.8 and I'm going to change this with the Zeiss and I want you to see what happens now that I'm shooting with the Zeiss this is the 25 millimeter f/2 we'll go back just one more This time this is the Canon and this is the Zeiss, there is a substantial difference. Now I've already graded the color of this footage when you saw it, but when I was alternating between the two lenses I copied the same grading so you can Now I can see the differences between the colors.

I'm not saying one lens is better than the others. In fact, I think most people today are going to do some type of post-processing, whether it's still photography or video, but it just depends on what it is that you like to photograph and what you'd like to choose, if you want a more saturated look or a little bit more subdued look, you have room to go with either one, but I thought it was that way. There is an interesting difference and I wanted to note it, so the bottom line on these two zoom lenses is that they are both amazing now that the F 2.8 version is twice as expensive as the f4.

I have noticed optically in what I have been showing you today. They are very similar, the only thing I notice that is different other than a slight size and slight weight difference is an extra brake light and is it worth paying double for now? I think there are certain photographers and if you're in this camp, you know who you are, where you shoot a lot in low light, whether it's video stills, and sometimes that one stop can make a big difference, but I think for most of us, The f4 is really my recommendation. I think it's hell. a deal which brings me to another point, this is why I like Canon lenses so much now they have been at this for a while and if you look at the range of their line they are constantly improving certain lenses and the other thing I really like The thing about Canon is that when they have an expensive lens that does something really well, there is usually an alternative that is quite affordable and offers almost all the same things that you will get with the more expensive versions, so I think, for example, this is Another example of that years ago was photographing a lot with the 85 millimeter focal range.

I really wanted to get the 85 millimeter 1.2. I rented it. I borrowed one from someone based on my favorite lens in their entire range. I really liked it. lens but it's also astronomically expensive so what I ended up doing was buying version 1.8. I thought I'm going to shoot with this until I can afford the 1.2 and the reality is that the 1.8 is an amazing lens; In fact, if we're doing a lot of portraits, f1.2 is so thin and shallow that sometimes it's very difficult to focus correctly, whereas you'll probably shoot in the f/4 area, just saying, but that's just another example, It's one of the things I think Canon is so good at anyway.

I would like to know what you think. If you have any experience with one or both zoom lenses let me know in the comments and if you like Canon gear, I have a whole playlist of videos I've made with Canon stuff and then last week I made this crazy video about it phase, one thing I have to rule out, which is a really expensive camera that is really fun to film with, so I'll link that too until the next video, see you later.