Upload & Sell: Off
| p.2 #3 · Best wide landscape lens - the winner is... |
sb in ak wrote:
I have no doubt the 16-35 is the "better" lens, but what is "better" really depend on the person's situation. With the 18-35, you lose a few features but you gain a substantial savings in weight. A lot of landscape photographers hike/backpack to their shooting locations, and the weight savings is somewhat significant with the 18-35. So it's not a question of necessarily saving money or needing the features. It might be saving the back. Several of the features for the 16-35 aren't real crucial for landscapers anyway if they're shooting on a tripod.
Exactly -- I shoot 99% of my landscape shots from a tripod and VR is not of any importance to me in these FL's, nor is the constant f/4. Its not like there is much of a difference between f/4 and f/3.5-4.5 anyway. What matters for me is stopped down sharpness, low CA, flare resistance and correctable distortion. Ideally in a lens that is lightweight and will take a screw in filter. If the optical performance of this lens is equal or at least very close to the 16-36 it makes a much more attractive lens to me. Price is actually less of a concern to me, as I have based my lens purchases mainly on what I need. However, I always take into account the value of the lens and that does make a difference in what I would buy. The lenses I was considering along with this new lens offer a fair amount of value along with performance -- but if the "best" lens for my use is a little more cash then its still worth the extra expenditure.