If you are set on needing the wide angle of the 16-35, then as others have said the f/4 is an excellent lens. However, with the 16-35 f/4 IS, I do not see the need for the 24-70... there is to much redundancy. I would replace the 24-70 with a 70-200 (f/2.8L IS II if you can afford it... otherwise the f/4L IS), and it fills the gap up to your Sigma as well.Originally Posted by Karsaa
It sounds as if you are not currently shooting Full Frame (FF). If that is the case, do you really know what 16 mm (or even 24 mm) looks like on a FF? I would check that out first. Even though I did all the math in my head, when I went FF I was surprised how wide 24 mm looked. It took a while to get used to. I also want a 16-35 f/4, but also realize it is going to replace my 24-105 mm when I do get it. Another experience that I had when going FF was that I waited too long to get the 70-200mm. Since I have had the 70-200mm; I love it for landscapes, wildlife, portraits, low light situations, etc.
In the end, it has to fit you needs. What shots do you have in your head that you want to capture over the next year or two? Write them down, and get a kit that helps you accomplish that set of goals. You do not have to have everything right now. You can get your camera and the 16-35 and play with it for a month or two... then it will become more obvious what you need to fulfill your shooting goals (fill the gaps), and what you want (or can) carry with you. Also, if you set some long term goals of shots you want to get, you can go search flickr (or other site) to find those shots to determine focal lengths others used. There are some creative people out there and the most obvious answer is not always the most creative or match what you want to accomplish.
Pat
Reply With Quote