Justin Huffman wrote:
It seems to me the dividing factor between people who love this lens vs people who think its not up to snuff lies within each photographer\' focus point.
In other words if landscape is your primary focus, the 16-35 does a nice job but not for 1250 bucks.
Justin,
It looks like the only people complaining about the 16-35 image quality are 14-24 shooters (except r.gil I guess) . I\'m still confused how some of them thought a $1200 standard filter using 16-35 was going to have image quality on par with the 14-24 F/2.8 that has already been given legendary status for an UWA zoom.
Justin Huffman wrote:
It seems to me the dividing factor between people who love this lens vs people who think its not up to snuff lies within each photographer\' focus point.
In other words if landscape is your primary focus, the 16-35 does a nice job but not for 1250 bucks.
Justin,
It looks like the only people complaining about the 16-35 image quality are 14-24 shooters (except r.gil I guess) . I\'m still confused how some of them thought a $1200 standard filter using 16-35 was going to have image quality on par with the 14-24 F/2.8 that has already been given legendary status for a UWA zoom.
Justin Huffman wrote:
It seems to me the dividing factor between people who love this lens vs people who think its not up to snuff lies within each photographer\' focus point.
In other words if landscape is your primary focus, the 16-35 does a nice job but not for 1250 bucks.
Justin,
It looks like the only people complaining about the 16-35 image quality are 14-24 shooters (except R. Gil I guess) . I\'m still confused how some of them thought a $1200 standard filter using 16-35 was going to have image quality on par with the 14-24 F/2.8 that has already been given legendary status for a UWA zoom.
Justin Huffman wrote:
It seems to me the dividing factor between people who love this lens vs people who think its not up to snuff lies within each photographer\' focus point.
In other words if landscape is your primary focus, the 16-35 does a nice job but not for 1250 bucks.
Justin,
It looks like the only people complaining about the 16-35 image quality are 14-24 shooters. I\'m still confused how some of them thought a $1200 standard filter using 16-35 was going to have image quality on par with the 14-24 F/2.8 that has already been given legendary status for a UWA zoom.
. I\'m still confused how some of them thought a $1200 standard filter using 16-35 was going to have image quality on par with the 14-24 F/2.8 that has already been given legendary status for an UWA zoom. 