low light stuff, bands weddings, events that kind of stuff f2.8 is worth alot more than sharp corners
and yes when a 16-35 f2.8 (hopefully with IS) comes out i don't expect it to be any less than the 24-70 mk11
personally i'd love someone to do a 16-35 f2 with IS i'd pay $4000 for that... don't care how big it is
just the same as i'd love a 35-85 f2 IS to go with it then i'd need 2 lenses and 2 bodies and almost never need to change
Thanks for the explanation, Wickidwombat… while I do quite a bit of low light stuff, it’s rarely in the UWA range (but more around 50mm). And when I do UWA long exposures, I’m using a tripod anyway – eg nature, or night street settings.
I hear you regarding the ‘extra attraction’ of a f/2 UWA with IS…. That would be great… but yes, a Canon equivalent would also huge and hugely expensive. The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is meeting most criteria there (although without IS/OS..) but I’m concerned reading about that lens’ inconsistent / sometimes inaccurate AF at times… I need AF to be spot on…
A 35-85mm f/2 IS would also be great…. Again, it would be huge and expensive… but a great focal range to cover at f/2 with IS. My current ‘2 lens’ travel solution is usually the EF-S 15-85mm USM IS and EF 70-300mm L USM IS. On other occasions I take along my 8-16mm Sigma instead of the 70-300mm L. Though not ‘fast’ lenses, they do very well and I can fit in my shoulder LowePro bag. I’m waiting for Canon to release a fast 50mm prime, hopefully USM IS – like the 35mm. That would complete my lens set!