nvsravank said:B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?
Tiosabas said:danski0224 said:The Year of the Lens has begun...![]()
One swallow doesnt make a summer..
Tiosabas said:One swallow doesnt make a summer..
candyman said:Some examples.
They are only JPG and a small size.
Bokeh seems nice.
nvsravank said:B&h mail says it is weather sealed with an optional protection filter.
First time seeing that! Any other lens have that kind of sealing?
Sabaki, I think you've really said it right.Sabaki said:Entry Level Trilogy: 10-18mm, 18-55mm & 55-250mm
Mid Level Trilogy: 16-35 f/4.0, 24-70 f/4.0 & 70-200 f/4.0
Holy Trinity: 16-35 f/2.8ii, 24-70 f/2.8ii & 70-200 f/2.8ii
bholliman said:The MTF's do look very good! I'm also pleasantly surprised by the initial pricing, after reading the introduction I was guessing $1,600 and $350. For a landscape photographer they look like terrific options. I'll be waiting for the hands-on reviews, but the 16-35 immediately goes on my list of most wanted lenses.
jeffa4444 said:Interestingly B&H list the lens at $ 1,199 in the UK its listed by Park Cameras at £ 1,199 at current exchange that makes it $ 2,014 our side of the pond. The US price converted is £ 713.00 our side of the pond granted the US price needs the sales tax added whilst the UK price include 20% sales tax (VAT). Even if you add 20% to the US list it comes out at $1,498.75 dividing that by the current exchange rate makes it £ 892.11 making the US price
£ 306.89 cheaper. Riff off Britain is alive & well.
PhotographerJim said:bholliman said:The MTF's do look very good! I'm also pleasantly surprised by the initial pricing, after reading the introduction I was guessing $1,600 and $350. For a landscape photographer they look like terrific options. I'll be waiting for the hands-on reviews, but the 16-35 immediately goes on my list of most wanted lenses.
Agreed, this looks like it's going to replace my 17-40mm VERY soon!![]()
Khalai said:candyman said:Some examples.
They are only JPG and a small size.
Bokeh seems nice.
These are supposed to be from 16-35/4L IS? Can you link the source please? 600x400px image is not really evaluable![]()
IQ:dufflover said:Well now that it's official I can go ahead and ask (well think aloud) how the new EF-S UWA will compare against the EOS-M w/ 11-22mm kit, not just IQ but also size (lens alone vs EOS-M combo). Like many I bought it as my UWA along with the M fire sale so I'm keen to see the differences.
Ha ha, one can't be suspicious enough...Albi86 said:The somewhat affordable price of the 16-35 makes me worry...