Upload & Sell: Off
| p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · Announced: EF 16-35mm f/4L IS and EF-S 10-18mm lenses |
because it isn't a leap by much over a 17-40, IS isn't a need for many and is 'IS" worth the 40 percent extra in this F/L? don't think so,would you see a difference between this lens and a 16-35 f2.8 and or a 17-40f4? not enough for many.
Guess it depends on the person. After trying three of the 16-35/2.8 II and still not liking what I got from the third, I pretty much moved away from Canon for much of my wide angle work and ended up spending probably over 20x more than this new lens in the process. Not unhappy about the money, as I've added some really, really excellent glass to my kit. But I still shoot some things with the 16-35 - primarily events - and a good performer to the image edges would be useful for larger group shots, etc. For me, just the optical improvements over the previous generations of these lenses would be enough for me. The IS isn't necessary, but I could see it being useful for some situations... and perhaps also video as I get more into that. FWIW, I've found that with some of the really sharp UWA glass I've added to my other kit, I have to be pretty careful about technique to extract the maximum image quality from hand held shooting. Even with a 21mm lens I'll see shot to shot differences at around 1/125 if I'm being sloppy... IS would likely minimize such variations. As sensor resolution increases, this will only become more apparent, IMO.