Gunzorro Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
I agree with Milan.
If you aren't super-technical about astronomy, and you want f/2.8 with filters, the 16-35/2.8L II isn't a bad lens, especially when you buy used, and shooting in such a way as to crop out the far corners and edges. It's a great lens for documentary or travel when f/2.8 is needed.
It does have curvature of field that causes the unsharp edges at longer focusing distances. But that same effects works well for closer bowl-shaped environs and for artistic emphasis of the central subject.
It's certainly a lot better than the 20-35/2.8L and its successor, the 17-35/2.8L -- both of which are still useful today.
For a top quality ~16-35mm/2.8 lens that takes filters -- the new Canon is really the only game in town, at a substantial price increase.
The only other possible "cheap" lens that might suit you is the Tokina 16-28/2.8. I have that on my Nikon D800e and it's pretty good wide open, except for haze and haloing (mostly due to SA) at the 28mm end. Stopped down, it's pretty good all over. No filters though, but that hasn't slowed me down!
|