$1K Here, $1K There, Pretty Soon You're Talking Real Money!!

[snerd]

So............. I find myself in need of a wide-angle for my 5D3. The 24-70 is sweet, but a lot of times I need wider for landscapes. I used the 10-22 with a 7D, and am noticing the difference! I'm looking at the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens. Yes, sometimes the 2.8 will come in handy! Do you think Canon will introduce anything at Photokina that will make me wish I had waited?!

 

[D-B-J]

16-35 on FX is perfect for landscapes. Unless they release a 14-24 2.8 or something to match Nikon's I don't see anything being released that would make you upset. Even so, wait two weeks.

 

[sscarmack]

I had the 14-24. Sold it. Regret it so much now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snerd]

Hmmmm...... wait two weeks, wait two weeks, wait two weeks.......... you don't ask for much, do you?!

 

[D-B-J]

Hmmmm...... wait two weeks, wait two weeks, wait two weeks.......... you don't ask for much, do you?!

Nothing. Nothing at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[snerd]

I'll probably wait.

 

[D-B-J]

You can do it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bratkinson]

Don't forget, the first 6-12 months will be the highest prices for newly announced gear.

 

[PropilotBW]

Don't forget, the first 6-12 months will be the highest prices for newly announced gear.

...and Christmas is coming, so older gear may have deeper discounts during holiday shopping season!

 

[Rick50]

I have the Canon 16-35 F2.8 and it is awesome. Highly recommended.

 

[Rick50]

By the way, the trick to photography costs is:
DON'T ever add up what you have spent!

 

[runnah]

Why bother with the 2.8 when most landscapes are done on tripods and at high fstops?

 

[snerd]

Why bother with the 2.8 when most landscapes are done on tripods and at high fstops?

I was inside a little chapel a couple weeks ago. Used the 24-70 at 2.8, handheld, and they turned out not too bad, but really cramped for space. The 16-35 would have been great in there! (in addition to my f/22 tripod landscapes). At least that's my thinking, which may not be like normal people thinking.

 

[snerd]

So..... I've waited and researched this some more. The consensus is that the f/4 version is better in price, value and image quality. Overall. Better. Lens. Never let it be said that I can't be convinced otherwise.


Sent from iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro 3

 

[CameraClicker]

The new lens at f/4 is a stop slower than the old f/2.8, but it has a stabilizer that is supposed to add 4 stops, so hand held, it should be better. With less cost and less weight, it would be my first choice if I were purchasing a full frame Canon zoom in that focal length range. I have the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8, and wish both had stabilization.