AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

Hey, it is your money but I would go with the f/4 with IS. The reviews on it are consistently very good.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

IS is not a must but the older I get the more I appreciate it. Thanks for your input. :)

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

I'm leaning toward that way, thanks. :)

Gifted One Loc: S. E. Idaho

Quick before they run out of stock.

J. R.

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

I had the 16-35, 2.8ii and sold it as I was not totally happy for the reasons you have mentioned. I am in the market to replace it as well but not sure if I want to go with the 16-35 4.0 or the 11-24 4.0. Most of what I read the 16-35 4.0 will do just fine. I am just one of those that like to ponder and ponder before making a decision. I am in no hurry, hoping the 11-24 will drop in price significantly to entice me to get it.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Whatever you decide be sure NOT to rent the 11-24. When that lens was introduced I was not sure why Canon built it with the criteria used. I had no interest in it's capabilities. Then last Sept. the Canon folks handed one to me in Yellowstone, and they had lots of trouble getting it back. My lens dream sheet has one listing and the 11-24 is it. The lens has so much potential the user can go nuts up close! I started shooting wide and close and quickly got lost diving into "boiling mud" or highlighting the details of crusted bison-dip. It is a large lens, but I was using it with a large body. I had never worked below 15mm and the 11-14 was fun, lots of fun. We were at the Grand Prismatic Spring and saw one other shooter using one. He also was very cautious of keeping himself out of his shot. The lens has a front element that will accept no polarizor, that is a rear drop-in. It takes some getting use to, but once you accomplish that the results are spectacular! I shot straight into setting sun with little flare, if any. If I could find a new home for my 15mm Zeiss I would own the Canon, it is that good, in my opinion. As far as price, the indicators say that prices of high-end gear will stay level until after Rio. Once Rio is over there will be a glut of financed gear on the market looking for new homes. Prices will drop, but how far is anyone's guess. I admire your comparison of these two lenses as they are great pieces of optics. Price-wise though they are kind of different. Whichever you go with, or both if you so chose I hope you enjoy. They are great lenses both. Good luck.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

I've got to stop reading this thread...I'm starting to feel a rumbling....and it could be GAS!

Anandnra Loc: Tennessee

Thanks DavidRB for your first hand feedback. You are making it harder for me now to decide! I had a fisheye in the film days and have a feel for what a extreme angle can do. Time to start saving I suppose.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

If you have been reading about the two lenses then you already know that the f/4 produces better image quality, if you are not going to be shooting stars or the milkyway and such I think that the f/4 may be a better lens. Low light indoor photography could be a problem as even though the IS will allow you to shoot up to 1 second exposures, if people move it will not stop action.

I am waiting to pick up my 16-35 f/4 from another hogger, so I guess that I am a little biased, but after doing the research and reading test scores for the the two lenses the decision to get the f/4 was pretty easy, especially since it costs so much less. I already have a Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 that has excellent IQ, probably as good as the Canon but it often falls victim to flare and it will not accept filters, this is the only reason that I wanted the Canon, I will probably keep the Tokina because of its excellent IQ and it is a great lens for shooting night skys. That and I got a really great deal on it so it did not cost so much.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Funny, but yesterday someone was considering getting a Nikon 16-35mm, and that got me reading reviews and wondering if need one. If only they made the IS lens in f/2.8. IS isn't quite as important on a wide angle lens, but still, it doesn't hurt to have it. If it were me, I would go for the f/2.8. I like that large opening.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I don't shoot many landscapes. But, I was wondering how many landscapes are shot hand held. I mean, if I were going out to shoot landscapes, I would probably take a tripod. If I were to use a tripod for the bulk of my shots, the IS would not be the decision maker for me when buying a lens.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

That has been a big part of my struggle. I actually don't shoot a lot of landscapes but I want to and I know I need a good lens but like you say, most landscape work is going to be on a tripod which negates the IS. My other purpose for the wide angle is to get close ups on buildings which are going to be shot handheld and makes the IS inviting. Something I haven't done yet and need to is to use my 35mm prime and go out and shoot some stuff with both f/2.8 and f/4 and see how much difference there is in using ISO and shutter speed adjustments to compensate for the exposure. I need to see where my skill falls off in holding the camera steady and where the camera fall off in ISO adjustment and maybe be able to determine which is more critical for me.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

Through this whole process I have been wondering why the don't offer a f/2.8 with IS :?

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

get the f2.8; it is fabulous and one of my favorites.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

This is not a snide retort to your question, rather one that hopefully will shed some light on the issue. As much as I distrust marketing people I must admit that they certainly do know what they are doing. And I also hate admitting this but the do run things the way consumers want things run. How many major mistakes have been made by marketeer-types? "New" Coke is the first to come to mind, but it is one of only a few. The Edsel certainly ranks high on the list. However, when marketing says something will fly it usually does. If there were a true market for the 16-35 to have IS, or VR it would have IS or VR. Even GM draws the line on an option if customers do not order it. The amount of money is too great in a world-wide market, if the money were there the companies would be collecting it. How many people have you overheard saying they would love to have a 24-105 in f/2.8? Add me to that list, but I won't need life-support if it does not happen. There must not be a market for it to warrant the offering. Keep your fingers crossed, it might just happen.