Upload & Sell: Off
| Re: EF 16-35 4L IS |
Nice! Those are actually better charts than the 24-70 f/4 IS has!
The one thing is WHY did they have to ape Nikon and stop it at 35mm too? The MTF still look great at 35mm so I wonder if they could have allowed it to just keep extending more (which can\'t hurt image quality at all over 16-35) and get at least 40mm.
I mean seriously, the MTF at 35mm are far better than the 16-35 at 35mm or 17-40 at 40mm so why on earth did they not let you just keep extending it? I note the old rumors had it pegged as 16-50 IS.
Was something in marketing afraid someone might buy this alone and not bother with either a 24-105/24-70 f/4 IS/24-70 II 2.8 too?? grrrrrrrrrrrrrr (of course now some will just add a 50 1.8 IS for way less money )
Still looks to be awesome, but the 35mm chop is a pain. It would be be nice to get away with it the times you don\'t want to lug three lenses along. 35mm is sooooooo borderline. But it is possible. And at least we are at 22MP so you can crop some. I did for a while squeak by with 24mm + 70-200/300L at times. But for the zoom + 300 prime it becomes dicier, etc.
I guess I will keep my 24-70 II 2.8 and sell the 24-70 f/4 IS and Samyang 14mm (although 14mm is definitely wider than 16mm....) and buy this 16-40 IS, oops darn I meant 16-35 IS.
But I fail to see why they didn\'t let it extend out more for 40-50mm .
THe 35mm is REALLLLLLY frustrating.
But the pricing isn\'t as scary as feared (so I bet it will sell a lot even despite the 35mm nastiness) and the MTF look good. Much better than the the 16-35 2.8 II and 17-40L and even better than for the 24-70 f/4 IS!! Nicely done in with those aspects.