If you are looking for lighter weight, and like the IS of the f/4 lenses, and don't mind the one stop less effective light (made up with the extra stops of lower shutter speed capability), then yes, either lens will be great options.
We have the 24-105mm F4 as well as the 17-40 lens. Very happy with the first, Starting off I'd probably go the 16-35mm F2.8. But happy with the 24-105mm as an all-round lens.
Interesting , thanks for the reply. I'm selling my 77D and use the funds towards the new Sony A73 as this new body finally has what I wanted. I tried Sony 6300 before with Sigma Mc11 but the overall experience wasn't great but I will give Sony another go.
I am looking at either or. So far I read the 16-35 F.4 IS incredible sharp as well as some have said better then the F2.8
You can get both of the f4 lenses for close to the price of one of the f2.8 lenses.
As always ... it depends on what you are shooting, on your needs, budget and style.
The Sony guys can hijack all they want but last I checked "Canon's" can shoots bigger balls"
if you do get the 6DMk2 take advantage of the focusing speed adjustment in Video when using the Live 1 point focusing. Focus speed adjustment will not work in any other mode. It can be very smooth and slow , nice a cinematic.
I totally agree, the 16-35 f2.8 L MK II is severely less sharp and the 16-35 f2.8 L MK III is as sharp but way more expensive. The 24-70 f2.8L MK II is such an awesome lens (IMHO) that it justifies its price tag over the 24-70 f4 IS L one (which is also less sharp, I never looked back once I purchased the f2.8 one although it is significantly heavier and lacks IS).
