16-35L vs 24-70L

[drisley]

I'm in love with everything about the 16-35L that I bought from from schmoelzel this spring. It's sharp with beautiful contrast and colour, and is built like a work of art. It also has no optical surprises, such as abberations, fringing, or anything. It's nearly a perfect lens.
However, there are times I wonder if I'm cut out for this wide length, or I would be more suited for something a little longer (the main reason schmoelzel sold it to me too).

Has anybody here used both the 16-35L and the 24-70L? I'm wondering how they compare optically. I've heard so many mixed reviews on the 24-70L, but then again, I read many mixed reviews about the 16-35L, only to discover it is a wonderful lens.

Any input, especially direct comparisons, would be great!

[AjP]

I did and I do once in a while, it is hard to compare 2 different range lenses. my poersonal opinion 16-35 is sharper

[drisley]

Thanks AJP :)

[Biko]

Just done a quick compare test not in best conditions - low light.

Used tripod and camera on timer and shot jpeg 100% crop nothing done to pics.

Top is 16-35 at 16mm at 2.8
bottom is 24 - 70 at 24mm at 2.8

http://www.btinternet.com/~i.c.palmer/Image1.jpg

Clearly the 16-35 is sharp at 2.8 wide

[Longwatcher]

While I am not fully surprised as the 16-35 is only 2x zoom and the 24-70 is almost 3x zoom, I would expect them both to be sharp in the center and the 16-35 at 24mm to be better, but for the 16-35 to be sharper wide open I am wondering if there are some bad 24-70's out there.

Just a thought,

[drisley]

Thanks Biko.
That's a great comparison, since I did a similar lens cap test with my 16-35L once.
This lens is definately sharper at the wide end, and that is what most report. It's still great at 35mm, but at 16mm it is TACK sharp.

[Sean-Mcr]

Just goes to show you that you can't always trust mtf's as the 16-35's chart has it sharper at 35

[drisley]

I know, I never really go by the MTF charts.
Most people I know with the 16-35L say it's sharp at 35mm, but VERY sharp at 16mm.

35mm F2.8 (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/35mm_f2_8)
16mm F2.8 (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/16mm_f2_8)

The 16mm images from this lens look like they had unsharp mask already applied.

But then again, at 35mm this lens is no slouch either. The nice thing is that the lens is just as sharp at F2.8 as it is at F11

35mm, F2.8, 1/80s, ISO800
http://images2.fotop.net/albums2/sharpnsmart/07_082005/IMG_1134.jpg

[Sean-Mcr]

See a lot of reviews i've read seem to be of the opinion that it's not as sharp wide open, i found that to be the case when i had mine. But hey, yours is so who cares what others say ;)

I went back and forth on getting another one right now it's the onlY zoom i'd buy; But, my 35 1.4L should be here in the morning:)

[buckwheat]

I have both. They are both terrific. I tend to use 16-35 indoors and outdoors for buildings. The 24-70 is a great walkabout lense outdoors. The 2.8 on both is really handy. I also have a bad case of L-itis!

[Lester Wareham]

Just done a quick compare test not in best conditions - low light.

Used tripod and camera on timer and shot jpeg 100% crop nothing done to pics.

Clearly the 16-35 is sharp at 2.8 wide

This is interesting as I am very interested to try and connect Canon MTF data with real results. What you have here seems to be at odds with the Canon data for these two lenses which show that the 24-70 should be much better. There is more difference away from the centre of the frame though.

If this test was at the centre can you repeat it at the corner?

[SkipD]

I use both the 16-35 and the 24-70 on my 20D. Though I haven't tried to do a scientific comparison, I have been extremely happy with images from both. You must also realize that I am very picky about my images, too. I have used top-of-the line equipment for years (1967-vintage Nikon F cameras and Nikkor prime lenses were my tools for a LONG time).

[Tapeman]

My 16-35 is two months old and I love it. I have owned the 28-70 2.8L for 5 years. Now for me it is a tough decision which one to take with me when bringing only one lens. I probably lean toward the 28-70 as my defalt lens when around & about. If I lived in a city I probably would use the 16-35 more.

[drisley]

My lens is definately just as sharp at F2.8 as it is at F11.
I really could not believe a lens at 16mm could be this sharp at F2.8.
I've done comparisons from F2.8 down to F11, at both ends, and the only difference is DOF.
Sharpness, contrast, colour, and lack of anomalies is exactly the same.
Perhaps there is a difference in the corners, but I've never noticed.

The 24-70mm range really interests me though, althoug I'm sure there would be times I would want something wider.

[grego]

The 24-70mm range really interests me though, althoug I'm sure there would be times I would want something wider.

I'd say wait, if you really love the 24-70L. You have a love in the 16-35, and it would be harsh to give it up. So just save and you'll get to that point finally.

[drisley]

Yeah, good advice I think.

[grego]

Yeah, good advice I think.

You do PJ, right? I believe I recall you mentioning using your 85 at bball games.

Well, that wide angle is a very important lens for PJ. More so than the 24-70, I'd say. So i'd go in the order of the 16-35 over the 24-70. Atleast that's how I'm doing it.

I know you don't have the 70-200, but for me, that's my ideal collection at bare min. 70-200 IS, 16-35L, and 24-70/28-75.

[SkipD]

Grego - you hit it on the head. The combination of 16-35 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8, and 70-200 f2.8 IS is a set of lenses that can't be beaten (if you can forget the price tags). I put a little hole in my savings and got this trio with my 20D a few months back, and haven't regretted it one second.

One beauty of the combination, aside from the fantastic optical and build quality, is the consistent feel of the lenses. Switching from one brand of lens to another on the same body during a shoot really messes up my mental flow, because they often work so differently.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I seem to like my 17-40mm more than I like my 24-70mm.

I'd like to think that of the $700.00 lens is on more than the $1200.00 one.. then if I had the 16-35mm it would be even more ahead of the game.

[mdenigris]

I love them both - I consider the pair to be my standard walk around setup.

[Titus213]

I don't own any of the expensive L glass (yet) but did rent a 24-70 for a weekend shoot. It's sitting here on my desk now and I am not going to like taking it back Monday. It was a stellar performer at the wedding last night. But man, that thing is heavy to haul around all night. I do know that I will need something a little wider too but this is one sweet lens.