SAUMBI wrote:
THANK YOU ALL for your assurance, this was another big ticket item that took some talking to mother to get the green light on!
Yeah, I know what you mean. I have not been dependeng on my mother for such purchases for a little while now, however, my source of gear financing has been merely transferred to my wife instead. I also have to put on my most heartdrenching tearjerking sick and suicidal monkey act before I get a green light for buying just about any gear(s) these days.
PetKal wrote:
Yeah, I know what you mean. I have not been dependeng on my mother for such purchases for a little while now, however, my source of gear financing has been merely transferred to my wife instead. I also have to put on my most heartdrenching tearjerking sick and suicidal monkey act before I get a green light for buying just about any gear(s) these days.
veroman wrote:
The major difference is the wider aperture, not image quality. But having f/2.8 at your disposal can often make all the difference in the world when it comes to capturing a usable image vs. not being able to capture one because you couldn't gather enough light.
- Steve
Yep... for wedding, low lite, great lens... used it to perform a danse using the video on my 5DII last week, and the result was awesome... Just the usefull lite.. Don't think I could have had the same result at F4, I was at 2.8 with my 16-35LII
Only problem of the 16-35L, is the quality of the barrel.. When in place with my camera, I just moved my camera, but hadn't seen the hood was touching my coach. Just trying to move up the camera, and the base of the lens broke , not even a shock... Had to send it back to Canon, cost me 100$... so very fragile, I guess it is due to the design.. My other L lenses are in on piece at the base of the lens, and you can see there are several pieces there, so these small pieces are very fragile.....
This is what I have been seeing, it is not even based on the same zoom range, If I wanted the very best image I would go to a prime, the 16-35mm zoom range is much more versatile, I would have loved to have had the 17-40mm zoom range, I am only swithching for the few times I need the F2.8, in low light. but I want to remain versatile. If you go to the same site it will give you a review of the lens I am buying and compare it to 2 primes, one, a leica 19mm 2.8, and say it is right there with it. Thanks to Breitling65, I got a good idea what to expect.
I am really glad I got to read what everyone has posted - I have not had the 17 - 40 and am moving from my 24-70 when the 16 - 35 shows up next week. Based on the comments here, somethiing tells me I am going to enjoy the 16-35 II a whole lot
I added a new photo taken today with this new to me lens, I am satisfied! two posts back for photo, I think this lens is better in every way to the 17-40L. It is not big steps better but better, the one thing it is not as good is flare, it does not like bright lights!
