I've never visited the landscape forum (because I don't really shoot landscape), but you guys have blown me away!! I guess I should come here more often because there are some absolutely fantastic photographers here.
After looking at all of this I realize two things. #1 You must make a killing on prints . #2 I need to save up for the 16-35L I've been looking at.
Sorry if that was a pointless post, but I just had to commend you all.
unless you want to use the lens for something other than landscapes as well, I suggest the 17-40. The focal length difference is minimal, and I doubt you'll be taking many landscapes @ f/2.8. It'll save you a lot of money.
I agree about the quality of the work posted in here. Mindblowing !
cmM. wrote:
unless you want to use the lens for something other than landscapes as well, I suggest the 17-40. The focal length difference is minimal, and I doubt you'll be taking many landscapes @ f/2.8. It'll save you a lot of money.
I had thought about the 17-40, but I do quite a bit of night and indoor shooting so the 2.8 would kill two birds with one stone. Unfortunately, it may be quite some time before I can raise that kind of cash I just picked up the 135L for candids so I'm flat broke for the time being.
. #2 I need to save up for the 16-35L I've been looking at.
I just picked up the 135L for candids so I'm flat broke for the time being.