Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Kebabselector

macrumors 68030
Original poster
May 25, 2007
2,997
1,650
Birmingham, UK
I don't get too excited over new Canon lenses anymore. The new Sigma stuff blows them away anyway.
 
The 16-35mm f/4 IS is a good option for photographers who do not need the f/2.8 aperture of the 16-35mm II lens. Although I'd be interested to see how it stacks up against the 17-40mm f/4 in real world scenarios.

I would imagine if a photog is looking to upgrade their 17-40mm without having to spend $1,500 on the 16-35mm f/2.8 II, they will look at the 16-35mm f/4 IS. Not a bad move by Canon.
 
torn between the 35mm 1.4 L or the 24-70mm II L from canon.

currently have a 18-135mm STM lens. cant go wrong with nice lens right?
 
torn between the 35mm 1.4 L or the 24-70mm II L from canon.

currently have a 18-135mm STM lens. cant go wrong with nice lens right?

All depends on what you think you'll use most. The 24-70 is my go-to lens and hardly leaves my camera as it's a good all around performer.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.