I have the opportunity to get my 16-35mm 2.8 ii changed out. I can either go for a 16-35mm f4 or the same lens. Also i guess i can throw the 11-24 but thats at an insane price increase. i don't know that i really want to justify the price increase to the tune of double the cost.
Uses- Tons of video. this lens has been my video beast- i use it on a gimbal, monopod and freehand. I do a lot of video in very dark(think concert) venues. The 2.8 makes a difference. and the fact that i cant focus all the time make this a very easy and go to lens. i set it at about a 4ft focus and it captures almost everything i need it to.
This is my go to wide for event photographs. I dont like it as much for this as i do for video. The resolution does seem low. I try to never crop these images to show the "blurry" ness. I dont know what to call it but its not like my sigma 50 where i can crop it to make ten different pictures.
This is the only reason where i am thinking about swapping it out. i have heard of the new and hottness that is the f4 and then of course the apparent holy grail of 11-24.
The f4 scares me. the IS intrigues me. the 11-24 has the worst of both but wears the crown.
i do like wide as they can capture unique images. The 11-24 would add another awesome tool to my photo bag and still staying away from fisheye looks.
i have tried to shooting the 2.8 at 4 and it wasnt a huge difference but i dont have a concert lighting to really test it out.
Does anyone have some wisdom on this? potentially have switched from one to the other?
Uses- Tons of video. this lens has been my video beast- i use it on a gimbal, monopod and freehand. I do a lot of video in very dark(think concert) venues. The 2.8 makes a difference. and the fact that i cant focus all the time make this a very easy and go to lens. i set it at about a 4ft focus and it captures almost everything i need it to.
This is my go to wide for event photographs. I dont like it as much for this as i do for video. The resolution does seem low. I try to never crop these images to show the "blurry" ness. I dont know what to call it but its not like my sigma 50 where i can crop it to make ten different pictures.
This is the only reason where i am thinking about swapping it out. i have heard of the new and hottness that is the f4 and then of course the apparent holy grail of 11-24.
The f4 scares me. the IS intrigues me. the 11-24 has the worst of both but wears the crown.
i do like wide as they can capture unique images. The 11-24 would add another awesome tool to my photo bag and still staying away from fisheye looks.
i have tried to shooting the 2.8 at 4 and it wasnt a huge difference but i dont have a concert lighting to really test it out.
Does anyone have some wisdom on this? potentially have switched from one to the other?
