But, if an alternative is to be considered, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens is my easy first choice. In the Sony vs. Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 Lens comparison (and mentally adjusting for the camera differences), I see the Canon turning in sharper corners at 16mm and slightly sharper corners at some of the longer focal lengths.
I would buy the 200mm f2.0. You can use it for almost everything, while the 300mm f2.8 is more or less useless for anything else than sports and zoo photos. Starkiller's gear list: Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 35mm F1.4L USM Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM +5 more.
Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS USM. vs. Canon EF 24-105mm F4L II USM. vs. 3 Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II. 4 Panasonic Lumix S 14-28mm f/4-5.6 Macro. 5 Nikon Nikkor Z
has a silent focus motor built into the lens. Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM. Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM. Lenses with built-in focus motor focus faster and more quietly than lenses without a focus motor which rely on the camera's body focus motor. minimum focus distance.
Sunstars. One of the major selling points in the Canon 16-35mm F2.8L II was the characteristically beautiful sunstar. Over the years it has become one of the most distinguishable and coveted sunstars in the landscape photography; so much so that some have even created photoshop actions to replicate it.
Not shown here, but the 10-18mm has the same or even less distortion as does the 16-35mm. Ha! I expect that the Canon 16-35mm f/4 L IS should be the first really sharp Canon full-frame ultrawide, but today, a $100 used Rebel with the new $300 10-18mm turns out images about as sharp as the $1,700 16-35mm f/2.8 L II and $3,200 5D Mark III. I just
Nujrwmr. 912 281 692 269 378 569 770 991
canon ef 16 35mm f 2.8 l usm vs ii
