Lenses for Waterfalls

[jrw]

As long as you keep sharing Pat I believe all will be forgiven.
Back to the lenses question I have added a 16-35 f4 to my kit for the wide angle option with ability to use filters which I do use very frequently. It means my landscaping kit now has 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 100mm macro, TSE 24. The one that gets the least amount of use is the TSE. It also produces some of the best, or at least unique, images when the scene fits the field of view and benefits from the movements. I keep looking at the 17mm and some other wide primes but when a lens can't take my filters it would lose so much value to me.

[conropl]

As long as you keep sharing Pat I believe all will be forgiven.
Back to the lenses question I have added a 16-35 f4 to my kit for the wide angle option with ability to use filters which I do use very frequently. It means my landscaping kit now has 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 100mm macro, TSE 24. The one that gets the least amount of use is the TSE. It also produces some of the best, or at least unique, images when the scene fits the field of view and benefits from the movements. I keep looking at the 17mm and some other wide primes but when a lens can't take my filters it would lose so much value to me.

Thanks.

From what I have read, the 16-35 f/4 is close or as good as a prime... so what would be the point of a prime. The 16 mm has a lot of dof... so it can be argued what's the point of the 17 tse (considering you have the 24 tse). The 11-24 is the next logical step; but for me, shooting ff and where I live in the land of flatness, going wider does not make a lot of sense either unless it was faster for night sky shots. Your landscape kit sounds pretty ideal.

I think I need to get the 16-35 f/4, but that is going to have to wait until I can free up some time to be able to use it more.