nightscape123 said:
StoneColdCoffee said:
@ Dustin Abbott
Hopefully you already have your Canon 16-35 f/2.8 Mk III ;-)
will you be comparing it against the Mk II and Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 ?
I love the Tamron but you know the issues around size, weight and no filters can be daunting, however I love the Corner sharpness and the ease at which the purple color fringing can be corrected. But $1000 vs $ 2200, that's huge, Hopefully you can answer the question in everyone's mind: Is it a lens that is $1200 BETTER than Tamron or Nikon 14-24 w/adapter. (especially for Landscape Astrophotography)
looking forward to your review
This is pretty much where i'm at now. The Tamron is amazing but can't use filters and is a little heavy. Can the canon really offer $1200 in value over the Tamron? I would say that is pretty unlikely but I wait to be awed or for the price to drop. If it is too expensive then they will have no choice but to cut the price like they did for the 24/70 f/4.
I have the Tamron and it is a very fine lens. I like the heaviness. It is a beast. It can use filters, just not the kind that screw onto the lens. There are kits out there and can be bought for approximately the difference between the two lenses. In that neighborhood anyway. If I were a landscape shooter I think I would rather have those plate filters anyway instead of the screw on filters.
That said, if the quality and sharpness is much improved above the 16-35 f/2.8L II then I will get the III. Maybe not in the next couple of years, but I will get it.
