Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM

If you insist on a UV filter then buy the best you can afford.

I have been thinking of getting one myself. I held off on it since I thought of getting a circular polarizer. However they way this guy handles situation, I don't think I need one anymore. B+W gets my vote also.

2cruise wrote in post #17224871

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pxFd​7y Watkins Glen by Whisle

Beautiful ! where is it? In a US national park I presume?
Can't wait to go to the United States someday and hike in these giant and preserved parks!

Like a dummy I sold this lens several months ago. I wanted to try the Sigma 35 Art, but I have been missing the 16-35 ever since. I have the Sigma on Ebay right now, the 16-35 is coming back home. Great shots everyone!

vwjoe76 wrote in post #18091210
Like a dummy I sold this lens several months ago. I wanted to try the Sigma 35 Art, but I have been missing the 16-35 ever since. I have the Sigma on Ebay right now, the 16-35 is coming back home. Great shots everyone!

I am sure you will enjoy it again. The colour rendition and detail captured by this lens on my old 7D is amazing. I sometimes think I have pushed the clarity slider too far and then realize its sitting at zero.

Its definitely sharper than any other wide angle and mid range zoom I have ever used.

Hey guys. I am a prime user but am debating between the 16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4. This is going to be for a general walk around, however I enjoy landscapes more than anything. I guess my question would be, how many times do you want to go wider than 24mm? I previously had a 14mm Rokinon and that was much too wide for me. So I am wondering how much of a benefit 16-23mm would really be to me.

As a general walk around I'd probably prefer the 24-70. Losing 16-23 could be huge, but 36-70 would probably be more useful.

asr10user wrote in post #18092590
Hey guys. I am a prime user but am debating between the 16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4. This is going to be for a general walk around, however I enjoy landscapes more than anything. I guess my question would be, how many times do you want to go wider than 24mm? I previously had a 14mm Rokinon and that was much too wide for me. So I am wondering how much of a benefit 16-23mm would really be to me.

Tough tough choice, but for me - and just take a look at this thread - the 16-35mm is an amazing landscape lens. If that is your priority then start with this lens. I have the 24-70 f4 coming in today, but I doubt I'll ever use it more than the 16-35mm. Ultimately though, it would be ideal to get both, so pick one and start saving for the other.

I agree that the 24-70 is likely a better general walkaround for most. I tend to shoot wider though, so I'd still pick 16-35mm to walk around for me.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18092633
Tough tough choice, but for me - and just take a look at this thread - the 16-35mm is an amazing landscape lens. If that is your priority then start with this lens. I have the 24-70 f4 coming in today, but I doubt I'll ever use it more than the 16-35mm. Ultimately though, it would be ideal to get both, so pick one and start saving for the other.

I agree that the 24-70 is likely a better general walkaround for most. I tend to shoot wider though, so I'd still pick 16-35mm to walk around for me.

I admire your work and respect your opinion on this. I myself find to be the same, I mostly shoot wide and this lens always sits in my bag.

To each their own but I fully agree with you. (:

asr10user wrote in post #18092590
Hey guys. I am a prime user but am debating between the 16-35 f4 and 24-70 f4. This is going to be for a general walk around, however I enjoy landscapes more than anything. I guess my question would be, how many times do you want to go wider than 24mm? I previously had a 14mm Rokinon and that was much too wide for me. So I am wondering how much of a benefit 16-23mm would really be to me.

I had the same dilema, but decided to buy first the 24-70. Recently I got a used 5D and now I have to pick up some lenses for this full frame body.

24mm on FF, is 15mm on a crop body... it's wide enough for some landscape. While 35mm is far from being a normal lens

And 24-70 f/4 has macro capabilities.

24-70 is more important than 16-35.

canon-alb wrote in post #18092756
I had the same dilema, but decided to buy first the 24-70. Recently I got a used 5D and now I have to pick up some lenses for this full frame body.

24mm on FF, is 15mm on a crop body... it's wide enough for some landscape. While 35mm is far from being a normal lens

And 24-70 f/4 has macro capabilities.

24-70 is more important than 16-35.

I still think that 16-35 paired with a fast prime in walk around range is a better combo than a slower 24-70 lens. I know the 24-70/2.8 variant is considered perhaps the bread and butter of any serious photographer working in controlled situations.

My problems with the 24-70 F4 are as following,
1. Its wide but not enough for those spectacular wide corners.
2. 70mm is not really a zoom on full frame and if need be is usually covered by superb companions in 70-200 options.
3. Its too slow to be used indoors in museums, restaurants etc.

It can do a bunch of things but other lenses can do them better. Nothing can replace an UW but an UW and nothing can do what 70-200 does on a full frame especially when it comes to portraits, landscape and sometimes even wildlife. I know its a stretch but I have often done that on my cropper.

Thats just my opinion and is what I have gathered in my few years of really amateurish shooting. Some might agree and some might not, really have to decide what's better suited for your style of shooting.