There has been significant chatter on both the Fstoppers staff and in the general comments we've been hearing and reading regarding Canon's move to introduce slower lens iterations, but with image stabilization, of their older faster glass. We've heard arguments on both sides of the table, but we're curious: what do you think?
When Canon introduced their $1500 24-70mm f/4 lens, there was quite a bit of confusion as to why such a lens needed to exist. If you wanted f/4, there was already the 24-105mm f/4. If you wanted 24-70, there was already the 24-70mm f/2.8. For Canon faithful, it was a lens that not only didn't need to be made, but it was an insult added to the injury for those who waited so long for an updated 24-70mm only to be rewarded for their patience with a lens few of them could afford.
More recently Canon announced the 16-35mm f/4 IS lens that has just as many L-glass lovers scratching their heads, especially when the 16-35mm f/2.8 II costs only a few hundred dollars more.
So what do you think? Vote in the poll below then tell us in the comments why you like or dislike what Canon is apparently doing with their lenses. Is this what you want from Canon, or no?
as a wedding videographer, the IS feature of the new 16-35 is great but I don't think it's that useful for photographers.
I don't agree with any of the possible answers. I own a 16-35 f/2.8L II and wouldn't dream of giving it up for the new f/4L IS version, but I also have a 70-200 f/4L IS and wouldn't dream of giving it up for the f/2.8L II version, that extra stop of light is not worth the doubled weight for me.