Which \"L\" 16-35 or 24-70 / 2.8?

[msnow]

16-35/2.8L or 24-70/2.8L.
I need help deciding which of these two lenses to buy. I already own the 28 - 135 IS. Is one better than the other? Appreciate anyone's input on this.

[DaveG]

msnow wrote:
16-35/2.8L or 24-70/2.8L.
I need help deciding which of these two lenses to buy. I already own the 28 - 135 IS. Is one better than the other? Appreciate anyone's input on this.

If you are using these lenses on a 10D then effectively you are getting a 24-50 and a 39-112. Nowhere - NOWHERE - would you pay a premium for a 2.8 lens in the 40-100 focal length range. And that doesn't get a lot better with the 24-35.

At least though with the 16-35 (I'm back to what they really are) you get something of a wide angle, today. Mostly though I'm waiting for the day when 24x36 CMOS chips are available in a 10D priced camera, tomorrow. Then the 16 is 16 and a FAST 16. Yet the 24-70 still doesn't do much, even then.

So my vote - and I recently voted with my money, if that counts more - is for the 16-35.

[msnow]

Thanks Dave and I get your point about the FL. Are the two optically identical in terms of quality (sharpness, color, contrast, etc...)? I notice that they are getting About $100 - $200 more for the 16-35 and I'm curious as to why that is.

[Belmondo]

It really depends on what you're going to do with it, yadda yadda yadda.

I don't have the 16-35, but I do have the 17-40. I also have the 24-70. The lens that's on my camera most of the time is the latter (24-70). That's simply a more useful range for most of my shooting.....but that's me.

I expect that if you're doing a lot of landscapes, the wider lens would be better for your purposes.

Your choice.

Tom

[dragons4Mama]

Why are you looking to get a new lens? Either of the ones you are considering are f/2.8 at all focal lengths, so you will be able to take pics in lower light. (Which has been a consideration for me)

The 24-70mm f/2.8L is only very slightly wider angle than the 28-135. Depending on how much you use that lens at 135 mm, you might consider trading the 28-135 mm for the 24 - 70mm (will help slightly w/ L-glass sticker shock)

If you take a lot of pics at 28mm, and wish you could go much wider, then consider the 16-35mm, which you would probably want as well as, not instead of, the 28-135mm.

The 28-135 IS is one of the first two lenses I bought. I still use it, but find myself preferring lenses w/ wider apertures (to 2.8 or 1.4) for more flexibility in lower-light situations.

I traded a Tamron 19-35mm for the Canon 16-35mm. The Canon is a _very_ nice lens - fast AF, sharp, better at low light. I find myself using it more towards the 35mm end.

When contemplating a new lens, I found it very helpful to look through pics, and survey EXIF data - do you take a lot of pics at 28mm? do you often wish you could zoom out more? [then get the 16 - 35] Do you take lots of pics betw 24 - 70, w/ only a few more telephoto than 70mm? [then trade the 28 - 135 for the 24 - 70] Or do you also take a lot of pics at 100mm or 135mm? [then keep the 28-135 and add the L-glass you'll find most useful]

A few weeks ago I had just the 28-135 IS and the 16-35. My decision was to get the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 primes instead of the 24-70 zoom. Although not L-glass, they are both very nice. DH was with me when I looked at lenses, and he drooled all over the 70-200mm, which will be very useful on vacation to the Galapagos...

Win
10D
28-135mm IS; 16-35mm f/2.8; 50mm f/1.4; 85mm f/1.8; 70-200mm f/2.8

[Canuck]

I have a Canon 16-35mm F2.8 L and enjoy using it a lot! It has proved its value may times in low light conditions like at dusk, or the last bits of light before it is gone. The other cool bit was when I was shooting pics of one of the children (she is about 6 months) of a coworker. There was a lot of background junk and opening the lens up to 2.8 made the background clutter extremely blurry. That was so cool. It allowed me to get moderately close to her but not too close that I was almost on top of her. I have sent the pics to the mother and two of our friends and they are in awe. Thanks for the creation of L glass Canon! The scary part was that I was shooting small, fine! I told all of them that this is only about 1/3 the capability of the camera. Now for the real shots, I'll shoot RAW. I wasn't bothered about shooting RAW as it makes such huge files and they wanted the pics ASAP.

Also, another point to make is what are you gonna take pics of. That will give us a much better idea what to go for. If you're doing sweeping landscapes/sunsets and the like, go for the 16-35; if you're doing portraits, moderate zoom stuff, the 24-70 might be better. Note: I have never shot w/ the 24-70 and this is pure speculation. I can speak for the 16-35 only! I however have done some portrait work for friends w/ the 16-35 and works really well. Also, note on the 16-35 you will get distortion on the 16 side of the lens! After all, at 16mm I do believe you are if not already, bordering on fisheye lens!

Just my 5 pence...

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[msnow]

Thanks all who have replied so far...I guess this explains why I like this forum so much.

I am going on vacation to Kaua'i in a couple of weeks so I guess that's what is motivating me (not mention "L" fever). So to answer your questions, I plan on using the lens (16-35 or 24-70) for landscapes (vacation shots), portraits and family shots. I've noticed that the 28-135 IS doesnt really zoom out enough to capture a lot of family pictures. What I'm also looking for is a dramatic (hopefully) improvement in sharpness in all my shots. I'm also looking to reduce some noise in my lower light shots at slow shutter speeds.

Are the two lenses essentially identical when it comes to the quality of the shot (e.g. sharpness, noise, saturation, contrast, etc...)? Why the cost difference?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Personally I would get the 16-35mm first.. as you allready do have a lens in the 28-70 range with your 28-135mm IS..

I realize that the L is in another class,. but why start replacing lenses you allready own BEFORE you even add to your existing range?

In fact I would suggest that not only do you get that 16-35mm next,. but then go for a 70-200mm after that...

The first lens i bought was a 28-something zoom.

It is the weakest link in my bag,. I did not know better,. It took me a short while to KNOW I had to replace it. But before I did 're-purchase" this lens,. I got lenses at the wide end and telephoto end, all of much better quality than that 28-XXX junker I started with,..

The 28-135mm you have is a far better lens that the 28-XXXmm I bought,. so it should tide you over while you expand your focal range. You are going in the right direction by onky cobsidering such high quality lenses. There is little chance you will have to replace your new lenses!!!

Just my 2cents.

[msnow]

Thanks for helping me make my decision. I went to the camera store and tested both (man, the 24-70 was HEAVY!). I bought the 16-35 for the reasons all of suggested. I apprecate everyone's help.