« on: February 11, 2015, 12:43:54 PM »
While there is some overlap between a 14-24/2.8 and an 11-24/4, there is really very little overlap between the 16-35/4 IS and the 11-24/4. I own a 16-35/4 and have the 11-24/4 on order. Besides the obvious point that they have different focal ranges, there is the following to consider.Those are some of the reasons I'm thinking about keeping the 16-35 f/4 IS, and I'll add that I find the 16-35mm range very useful. Stopping at 24mm means changing lenses, whereas 24-35 covers a lot of additional shooting. The polarizer argument is less important to me as most of my shots include the sky, but if you shoot a lot of wet rocks and such, it's a good one. My thing is that I have a ridiculous number of wide lenses already and I'm certainly not a collector - so it's more than I need or could use regularly. It's also a lot of money tied up that could be used to pay for the 11-24 outright.
- The 16-35/4 can take front filters - meaning polarizers. The 11-24/4 only takes gels - so your're limited to ND filters
- IS on the 16-35/4 allows one to take shots near 1/2s - meaning situations not generally possible with something else
- The 16-35/4 does a decent job with infrared. I am not sure about the 11-24/4, but I will not know for some time because all of my IR is currently done with a filter.
- The 16-35/4 is a much smaller lens
- While both are weather proof, with the 16-35 you do not need to worry about the protruding front element
I am in a similar boat. I will now have the following WA lenses - 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 II, TS-E 24 II, TS-E 17, 8-15 fisheye, and 11-24/4. The problem is each has its own niche, so I have no plans to get rid of any of them.