Wish to buy a Canon 2.8L: 24-70 or 16-35 mk II ??
188917
Hi John! If you are doing landscape photography, you don't really need a F2.8 lens. In my opinion, you would want to be between f11-f16 & even f22 for landscape. You will have to use a tripod at night regardless at such small apertures. Having a f2.8 lens won't help you take a sharp picture at night. What you need a good tripod for night photography because of the long exposure :)
1625584
The difference is 1mm wider on the wide end and doesn't have as wide of a zoom range (8mm less on the long end). In exchange for a very limited zoom range, you get 1 stop more light to your sensor.I have the 11-16mm and wouldn't trade it for the 12-24 unless I needed more overlap with my other lenses. As it is right now, I have nice coverage from 11-200 with only small gaps (16-17mm and 55-70mm) and a constant f/2.8 or better.
1418334
i would say the major difference in price is because of the build quality..i have used this dslr kit and i was really happy with everything..and the canon 70-200 should fitas you have a lot of space to move your camera body back and forth.
483540
It's all in the name. The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is the newest of the product. Go to CanonUSA.com for your answer. The big part that confused you (I think) is the "IS II"). Good luck. Vic
2004640
Which one did you finish up with? I'm interested because you said that you shoot mainly lanscapes, so why would you part with the 17-40mm? If your option had been for the 16-35mm f2.8L, I could have understood the reason, but a 24mm lens on any new camera (assuming it's not a film body, 5D or 1Ds) is only going to give you 31mm (1D) or 38mm (the rest). Not much good for landscape work.BTW, the 24-70mm eats the 24-105mm alive when it comes to contrast and sharpness, IS or not!
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
357722
I own both...in terms of image quality, there's no comparison - the 24-70 is in another league. It's a full stop faster (brighter viewfinder, better depth of field control, faster focusing, etc) and it gives you that "pop" you get from the best professional grade lenses. On the down-side, the 24-70 is a much narrower zoom range, so you might find yourself needing to carry two lenses whereas just the 24-120 would cover you otherwise. It's a personal thing I guess, but if I could only have one or the other, I'd take the 24-70 without a moment's thought.
2074843
I'm not familiar with the lens you are using but the 16-35 is pretty fast. I prefer the 24 mm 1.4 for low light though
466981
Hi. I don't have a comparison. With image stabilization the f/2.8 is not required for most people. The f/4L is much lighter. All of the L series are good quality. I suggest checking the photo magazines where they do extensive lab tests under all conditions.
328902
I was faced with this exact problem and chose the 700. Here are my reasons. The 700 has a longer lens but the 800 has a wider lens. For my shooting purposes, longer is definitely more useful. You should think about what kind of shots you're likely to shoot and decide based on that. The 800 has a newer sensor and higher ISO capabilities. The higher ISO enables you to shoot in dark light so if you often shoot at night, that might be something to think about. I doubt the newer sensor is worth the $80. It's not like the 700 had a terrible sensor.
382298
The 2.8 gives you slightly better VR and one more stop over the f4. You could always take advantage of Amazon's 30 day return policy and try the f4. If it works well for you, keep it. If not, return it for the f2.8 model. Your current lens has NO VR, so either lens would be a big improvement.
1762796
I had the 18-250 non stabilized. I sold it to a friend. I am in my mid 70s and need the IS to help me get sharp pictures. I see no reason why you need the 16-300. Enjoy it.
608537
Since I don't have the 18-55 I can't compare. But let me say that the 23 is an excellent prime lens which, in daylight, autofocuses almost instantaneously. In dim light, such as twilight, it may (although not necessarily) hunt around in order to find focus. But that would occur just as well with other excellent lenses including Canon L which I also happen to have. In those situations, experienced amateurs will at once shift to manual focus without dropping a beat.
256749
pre order has opened. shipping in April. suggested retail price is absurd! http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Zoom/dp/B0076BNK30/ref=sr_1_55?ie=UTF8&qid=1328906482&sr=8-55
794543
I would pick the 24mm because since you are dealing with a non-zoom lens the 35mm will be more limiting than you might think. I rented both the 24mm and the 35mm before I made the purchase and I found myself switching back to the 24 frequently to capture the shot I wanted. Also, the distortions one might expect to see with "cheaper" 24mm lenses are virtually non-existent with this lens.
597329
Sounds good! I'm buying my first digital camera for my daughter and her family. I've locked in on the t1i and 15-85. I really like my 24-105 lens and think that the 15-85 should be a great match for the camera.
1716985
What version of the 24-70 are you referring to? If you do not need f2.8 then I would steer you to the new f4 version that has IS. The 28-70 is an old lens no longer supported by Canon and you will find it difficult to find someone to fix it if you ever have problems.