very last lens thread, i promise

T

thegoldfi

Active member
Does this sound stupid?

So I decided that I sort of want the 16-35L. The problem, however, is that it costs like $1400. For this same price, I could get a Tokina 11-16 and a 17-40L. Is it stupid to think in terms of more is better? Would it actually be that beneficial to have two lenses vs. one good one?

I have also considered going 17-40L and then getting a faster prime (28 1.8 maybe) for more video purposes. That would somewhat crush either the 16-35 or 11-16 in terms of low light. Right?

Please advise.

Wife says I should get what I want, provided I get out and use it...
 
thegoldfi said:
Would it actually be that beneficial to have two lenses vs. one good one?
Click to expand...

Is the 16-35 really that much better than the 11-16 and 17-40? Also, you'd lose out on 11-16. Also, why the 17-40 when you can get a much cheaper 17-50/2.8 from Tamron or Sigma? Are you planning on moving onto a 5D? More expensive and faster aperture does not always mean its better.
 
I have the 16-35mm L and prefer it of the 17-40mm since I work in dirty, dusty, sometimes even filthy environments. The Tokina 11-16mm is a lens I would not part with for the 7D.

My next lens purchase will be the Tamron 17-50mm VC. Why? Just to get the image stabilization. The Tokina and the Tamron will be the only crop sensor lenses I will buy since I also have the 5D.
 
would not say i'll be doing "work" with it, but i will be using it for shooting BMX (action) footage, mainly outdoors. the 11-16 might be good for some indoor stuff.

i also plan on using whatever lens(es) i get on photos too.

i can't say i am too keen on the Tamron/Sigma lenses, as I wouldn't mind getting something that focuses/zooms internally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top