rdgreenwood wrote:
Well, there are going to be a number of people who think I've lost my mind, but I finally made my decision. Your input was great and helped me tremendously. More than the support of a certain lens, what you gave me was a list of the differences that I had to consider, a sense of what you and I, as photographers, value in a piece of equipment. My wife will be pleased and astounded to learn that I've decided to buy the less expensive lens. I'm buying the 16-35 mm f/4 lens.
If you're scratching your head and wondering why I made this decision, I can sum it up in one word: filters. I'm not the nimble, adroit person I was a while back and have tripped and fallen three times in the last four years. Each time I had my camera and the lens I had on it was saved by the UV filter. The 14-24 mm lens won't accept a filter, so I'd have to be constantly worrying about it. I'm not good at doing anything on a "constantly" basie. I can't take the chance of trashing a $2000 lens.
Again, thank you for your input. UHH is a wonderful resource, and your assistance was most appreciated. You may now begin to fight over Nikon vs Canon, HDR, and the danger posed by a forest dwelling moose.
Well, there are going to be a number of people who... (
show quote)
I have the 16-35 f/4 and love it. It has the additional benefit of VR which makes it much better for video.