I currently have the f/2.8 II 16-35mm - haven't used it much yet, despite owning it a year, but that's more through being occupied with house renovation at weekends and working the other end of the country from home during the week.
Saw a FS post on here tonight, with someone selling their 2.8 in favour of the newer f/4 IS. Thought their 16-35mm was cheap, but it raises an interesting conundrum/opportunity. Used value of the f/2.8 is about the cost of an f/4 IS (if bought on the grey market). So effectively a nil cost to change, to what is (reportedly) a sharper lens - at least in the corners. I bought the 16-35 over the 17-40, not really for f2.8 (the need for 2.8 on an UWA is a bit niche in my view), but mainly for the slightly extra WA combined with a healthy dose of gear acquisition syndrome. At least that's how I justified it to myself at the time
Obviously f/2.8 gives you an advantage in low light, but unlike on a fast telephoto, makes little difference creatively and it's not really a lens for isolating subjects from backgrounds after all; further, AF is not a stretch for the camera at f4 either. And the advantage it gives in low light can be largely overcome by bumping ISO up a notch.
Which leaves the f/4 with IS as quite an attractive lens. I think it unlikely f/4 vs f/2.8 to be much of a disadvantage, when it's combined with IS and sharper overall quality. With nil cost to change (or next to nil), it's a fairly unique opportunity in tech - downgrade to upgrade.
Of course, it's woman's* logic to think it is really a nil cost - as the used value of the f/4 when sold will expose the true loss in "investment" versus what was spent on the 2.8 when new. I also imagine it will cut into Canon's 16-35II sales somewhat.
"apologies ladies
Simon
Saw a FS post on here tonight, with someone selling their 2.8 in favour of the newer f/4 IS. Thought their 16-35mm was cheap, but it raises an interesting conundrum/opportunity. Used value of the f/2.8 is about the cost of an f/4 IS (if bought on the grey market). So effectively a nil cost to change, to what is (reportedly) a sharper lens - at least in the corners. I bought the 16-35 over the 17-40, not really for f2.8 (the need for 2.8 on an UWA is a bit niche in my view), but mainly for the slightly extra WA combined with a healthy dose of gear acquisition syndrome. At least that's how I justified it to myself at the time
Obviously f/2.8 gives you an advantage in low light, but unlike on a fast telephoto, makes little difference creatively and it's not really a lens for isolating subjects from backgrounds after all; further, AF is not a stretch for the camera at f4 either. And the advantage it gives in low light can be largely overcome by bumping ISO up a notch.
Which leaves the f/4 with IS as quite an attractive lens. I think it unlikely f/4 vs f/2.8 to be much of a disadvantage, when it's combined with IS and sharper overall quality. With nil cost to change (or next to nil), it's a fairly unique opportunity in tech - downgrade to upgrade.
Of course, it's woman's* logic to think it is really a nil cost - as the used value of the f/4 when sold will expose the true loss in "investment" versus what was spent on the 2.8 when new. I also imagine it will cut into Canon's 16-35II sales somewhat.
"apologies ladies
Simon
