gdanmitchell Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
mohamed alfari wrote:
I am planning to buy wide angle lens, mostly for travel. the 11-24 mm is more interesting for sure but the weight, especially for small hikes (of course with other gear) is what concern me, plus the price is almost double the other one. what makes the 16-35mm appealing is the opposite weight, and price much cheaper but also the IS which will come handy because I am going to shoot in a rainforest on my next trip.
also I have very little experience with ultra wide angle, do you think it will be more of specialised lens than 16-35mm one.
so my question if money wasn't a problem, which one would you buy for travel. ...Show more →
On some of the specifics (price, bulk, weight) you seem to have done your research. Your question is perhaps more about the usefulness of such lenses. This is a fairly subjective thing, based on individual shooting preferences and how one balances things like cost, weight/bulk, frequency of need, and so forth.
If you have not used ultra-wide zooms, the first question you need to sort out is whether you need the extraordinarily wide angle coverage of 11mm on (I presume) full frame. While acknowledging that everyone's experience is different, mine is that I rarely need wider than 24mm, and that 16mm is quite wide enough for virtually everything I shoot. If you are going back and forth between the two lenses without experience that can help you decide, I'd recommend the 16-35 as a starting point, knowing that most people (by a large margin) will be quite happy with its coverage — and you'll be happier with its smaller size/weight for travel.
Dan
|