Gear suggestions.

[Josh220]

The Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is available next month, by the way. I wouldn't be surprised if it beat out the 16-35 f/4 in image quality.

Not likely, as it would then be as sharp as the 14-24.

Sorry, not going to happen.

 

[ironsidephoto]

Acutally, I have done research on it, Josh220, but thanks for making an ass out of u and me.

I've seen that the 16-35 is sharper, but to me the 2.8 is more worth it than sharper (which I might not even notice) with f/4 and VR. I think...

Also, like was mentioned above, I've heard the build quality of the 17-35 is much better. True?

 

[Josh220]

So, in theory, I could shoot the f/2.8 lens at f/4 and have it be sharper than the f/4 lens at f/4.

Acutally, I have done research on it, Josh220, but thanks for making an ass out of u and me.

I've seen that the 16-35 is sharper, but to me the 2.8 is more worth it than sharper (which I might not even notice) with f/4 and VR. I think...

Also, like was mentioned above, I've heard the build quality of the 17-35 is much better. True?

Chill, I was just trying to help clarify your previous statement which contradicts your last. If 2.8 is worth more than sharpness, then the 17-35 is the lens for you. But you never said anything about that previously, only that the 2.8 would be sharper than the f/4 at identical stopped down apertures. When comparing the two, the 16-35 is sharper at all apertures.

The 17-35 is more "solid" feeling since it has more metal than the 16-35. The 16-35 doesn't feel the same as the 17-35, 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. To some that is a benefit rather than a weakness though. Metal almost doubles the weight so the 16-35 is a fairly lightweight lens.

Pick your poison and relax a bit. The internet is hard to communicate over. Everyone always assumes that people are out to get them and that comments are in negative tones. Name calling obviously does not help the issue.

Hope that helps.

 

[ironsidephoto]

You're right, sorry for jumping the gun.

I guess I didn't think about the fact that the 16-35 might be sharper wide open than the 17-35 would down a couple of stops, which is where it should be its sharpest.

Otherwise, I just don't know. I got the 70-200 today, so that'll distract me for a while while I mull this decision over.

 

[aprillove20]

Well, I prefer D700.