Talley wrote in post #18162266
I may or may not end up with this lens. Currently it THE BEST uwa on the market and it's sharpness is simply unreal. It's literally as sharp as my 200 F2. This thing is the real deal and yes I feel it can command a price at this level of performance. Performance is not cheap and the previous model becomes a real deal. Sharp center and OK midrange/poor corners but hey it's all what you want.
My thing is if I had to own any zoom at all... I'd probably have to have a 24-70 as it'd be more useful to me than a uwa but I do know many people where the UWA is the primary lens and this thing is killer
The Tamron 15-30 is no slouch either... mine is for sale but only because I'm moving to primes only. I also want that 12mm 2.8 Laowa.... I mean if I'm going to go wide I might as well do it right.
The 24-70mm f/2.8 II, 70-200mm f/2.8 II are my most used lenses (I do lots of event photography). I'd used the 16-35mm f/4 (too slow for me a lot of the time) before this summer when I picked up the Tamron 15-30mm. The Tamron is definitely no slouch, way better than the 16-35mm f/2.8 II and almost as good as the 16-35mm f/4. But it's a heavy beast and won't take conventional filters. Both are serious issues with me. It's hard to justify an additional $1100-1200 just for this but I have. The "III" will round out my bag for years to come.
While photographing performances I use 4-5 lenses, but for crowd photos & portraits at shows I do use the UWA primarily. I've missed 35mm, looking forward to having it back.