BasilG

I agree. Scenery and flowers doesn't ask for the same lens usually, at least for my use. I think the suggestion to go with a 60/2.8 instead of the 50 is a very reasonable one, and then get a wide ...

You said that one cannot have an opinion on lenses that one hasn't used. I replied that in some cases, reviews point out flaws so clearly that one doesn't need experience with the lens to know ...

I think one of the reason this is "underrated" is that there's the cheaper, lighter, and very sharp 18-35/3.5-4.5, which will do most of the things the 16-35 does, except for having VR and ...

Your kit is not exactly optimized for going light. :) I like to use a 18-35 + 70-300 combo, maybe a 50/1.8 in between. That provides quite a bit of coverage at a lower weight than any single one ...

No need to start three different threads for this. It is possible to reply to your own thread after all...

Bag? Truck, you mean. :)

Once this lens is out, 95% probability I'll jump on the mirrorless bandwagon.

What? Just to be clear - I have used the 35-70/2.8, and it was rather unimpressive. Yes, it's f/2.8, yes, resolution is probably decent enough for a 12 MP DX DSLR if you don't push things, but it ...

And you know that because? Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but i) in some cases, reviews are quite clear about serious flaws of certain designs (doesn't apply to this one), and ii) in my ...

Nope. Not good. Nope. Not good either. People seem to glorify it around here, but I tried it and was not impressed. Don't know, but probably not that good either. Nope. APS-C-only lens. I'm not ...

I'm not a wedding pro, but that's not how it works.

Disagree. Sinking money into a body that doesn't hold up is wasting said money.

Price/performance is great. It's also very light (great for hiking) and has excellent, excellent flare resistance. I used it mostly stopped down for landscape. No complaints. A lot of these are ...

11-16 - 35 - 70-300 is actually an extremely good choice if you're serious about things (and aim for quality). It's similar to what I use in my FX kit. It's not super convenient though.

Let me know how that goes, I'm in the same boat. I'm really tempted, but then, the Nikon is actually pretty good and I think I just got bitten by a bit of GAS.

Not a valid argument. Could be due to any number of other reasons (contrast, glass quality, the motor, whatever). The only thing that does matter is whether the AF points are f/4 or f/5.6 ...

No, it's design of the AF module. Canon has had f/2.8 sensitive AF points for a long time. This is interesting, though it does not apply to all f/4 lenses. Though I admit that there's a possibility ...

How does buying a new one save you any money over buying a legit imported one in the first place (the price difference is usually not that large)?

Flare resistance seems to be rather good?

25%? I think you might have mixed up the 70-300 AF-P DX VR with the 70-300 AF-P VR for FX. They're different lenses. I wouldn't do it. If you ever need warranty service, you're in trouble.