need a wider all around travel lens + the usual urge to buy something

mike cabilangan wrote in post #18018339
wow, thank you for doing the math.

devil's advocate is much appreciated.

last two:
see the image above, it was shot at 118mm (converted to FF AOV), something the 24-70 won't be able to do
6 months to pay on the 15-85!

The 24-70 F4L IS has macro mode and can focus a lot closer than the above. It can focus at 0.7 feet at 70mm with 0.70x magnification.

By comparison, the 18-135 STM has a minimum focus distance of 1.28 feet and 0.28x magnification.

Very best,

thank you. ordering the 24-70 f4 L IS.

she has another offer for the UWA though.

i have a 17-40.

she is offering the 16-35 2.8 II on 6 month installment.
i was thinking since my UWA's are for stopping down, i don't actually need a fast UWA and thus should go for the stabilized 16-35?

mike cabilangan wrote in post #18018379
thank you. ordering the 24-70 f4 L IS.

she has another offer for the UWA though.

i have a 17-40.

she is offering the 16-35 2.8 II on 6 month installment.
i was thinking since my UWA's are for stopping down, i don't actually need a fast UWA and thus should go for the stabilized 16-35?

16-35 F4L IS all the way. The F2.8's are soft at F2.8 anyways. I'd rather have a 14L or Rok 14 over a 16-35 F2.8 flavor. I'd take 16-35 F4L IS over all of them.

Very best,

I'll offer another solution: the EF-M 11-22mm and Spiderholster Black Widow. You can attach the EOS M3 + UWA lens to your belt, and carry the 70D with 18-135mm camera, have a focal length of 11-135mm covered on APS-C, and feel like you are carrying around a single camera body.

I used this solution in a slightly different way last summer in Yellowstone. I would clip on the EOS M + EF-M 18-55mm, and then carry around either my 7D2 + 100-400mm when looking for wildlife, or my 5D3 + 16-35 f/4 IS when walking around the geothermal areas. I could cover the "normal" focal length range and either UWA or telephoto, depending on what I expected to encounter, without swapping lenses. It also allowed for a very light weight option of just the EOS M for a couple of long hikes. I didn't feel any weight from the EOS M using the Black Widow holster.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18018390
16-35 F4L IS all the way. The F2.8's are soft at F2.8 anyways. I'd rather have a 14L or Rok 14 over a 16-35 F2.8 flavor. I'd take 16-35 F4L IS over all of them.

Very best,

what do you think about the tamron 15-30? 2.8 and VC

mike cabilangan wrote in post #18019185
what do you think about the tamron 15-30? 2.8 and VC

It's awesome, but, very costly and really it's for someone who wants F2.8 at 15mm with stabilization.

If you don't absolutely need F2.8 because you're already living at the highest ISO you can tolerate, then I'd get the 16-35 F4L IS for every other reason over it.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18018098
I just let a friend of mine take my 650D + 18-55 STM to Japan for a 5 week vacation, will be interesting to see what he thinks, if it was wide enough, long enough, etc. It's small enough to look "consumer" while walking around. Light enough to not feel like a brick.

I was in Japan last year with my 550D - I had an EF 40mm STM on it most of the time for walk-around and >50% of my best shots were with the pancake. But inevitably for some temples and landscapes there were times when the EF-S 10-22mm was indispensable.