Traumuh wrote:I'd try the 16-35 out in-store or rent it, seems like a hassle to buy it just for testing.
Traumuh wrote:Definitely EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, if you can afford it the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM is insanely wide on a pro body. I'm confused by your first option though, because you coupled the most expensive of the bunch with a another lense instead of comparing the TS-E to a set of two lenses of similar value. Just a mistake? Ha..
Professional wrote:even that TS-E 17mm was not in my mind as it is new lens and no much reviews about it and also it doesn't accept filters normally so i don't feel it is worthy that much really over the other lenses.
bob_r wrote:I don't think you can go wrong with any of these lenses, so which focal length do you prefer when shooting with your 16-35? If you don't know which focal length you use the most, you can download a free program called ExposurePlot from here: http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html and it will show you.
BTW, why does the 16-35 not work for you? Except for the architectural shots, I don't see why the zoom wouldn't work for your other applications. If you're planning on getting a TS-E 24, did you know that Canon has recently introduced a new version. The new one is priced near $2,200 while the older model is listed at about 1/2 of that. The new model is supposed to have a number of improvements over the older version.
gldiana wrote:Professional wrote:even that TS-E 17mm was not in my mind as it is new lens and no much reviews about it and also it doesn't accept filters normally so i don't feel it is worthy that much really over the other lenses.
If I had that kind of money to spend I'd get a TS-E 17 now, I make my own reviews. Frankly on a lens like that I don't care about filters, my fisheye doesn't take filters either. I have all the lenses I want except for a Tilt Shift and the MP-E 65 Macro. I'd go first with the TS since that I'd use for work and the macro would be for fun.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests