Your opinion needed on next lens, please..

[splitslim]

Hi everyone!

I currently have a Rebel XT with the kit lens and a 70-200 L F/4. I'm considering the following lenses for a general purpose, walk around type application which I can use for indoor/outdoor and family gatherings (group shots, etc). I want to stick with Canon products, so Tamron, Sigma, etc are not included.

16-35 L F/2.8
24-70 L F/2.8
17-55 EF-S F/2.8 ---> ( shying away from this one due to possibly upgrading to a full frame slr in the future )

Sharpness, speed and IQ are important to me. Size and weight do not matter.

I would like to stick with F/2.8 for better low light performance. IS is not really a must for me.

Opinions or thoughts would be appreciated!

Thanks!

SS

[Mr. Clean]

Well, since you've pretty much eliminated all but one manufacturer and appear to only want L glass, only you can answer your own question. Instead of asking "what lens do you all think I should get", ask "what focal length do I want".

Heck, you don't even need a post.

[splitslim]

Good point Mr.Clean, thank you for your response.

Maybe the question should be would I use the 16mm-35mm focal length be of much use to me. Another possible option would be the 24-70 L along with a 20mm F/2.8 prime I guess.

I have read here, however, that many people are not happy with the performance of the 24-70 L. Is this an opinion held by a majority of owners?

[Mr. Clean]

Good point Mr.Clean, thank you for your response.

Maybe the question should be would I use the 16mm-35mm focal length be of much use to me. Another possible option would be the 24-70 L along with a 20mm F/2.8 prime I guess.

I have read here, however, that many people are not happy with the performance of the 24-70 L. Is this an opinion held by a majority of owners?

Well, there again. Would you rather have width or length :lol:?

The 16-35 is a great lens, not necessarily without it's shortcomings but what lens isn't?

The 24-70 problems, and it doesn't matter what manufacturer in that focal length, are exagerrated. Now I'm not saying people haven't had their issues, it just appears to be a larger concern due to the 'net. More people will post a complaint with their lens then post their happiness with their lens.

If 24mm is wide enough for you then I wouldn't hesitate to tell you to buy the 24-70L. If it's not, well then you have more choices. 24-70L plus the prime? Or just the 16-35 since you already cover 70+ range?

For what you posted for, the group shots indoor outdoor stuff, I would say the 16-35. My 24-70 is not quite wide enough to use indoors and capture a lot of people.

[splitslim]

Mr.Clean, you advice is appreciated.

I see you also use a 1.6x camera in the 30D, and was just about to ask you if the 24mm is wide enough for the group shot, architecutre, etc, shots.

Do you feel that I would benefit more from the 16-35 range even after an upgrade to a full frame camera? Or would at that point I be better suited by the 24-70?

Also, since I have the 70-200 range covered, do you feel that the 16 to 24 gap is more important to cover the the 35-70 gap in my scenario with the RXT and these 2 options of lenses?

Thanks again!

[Mr. Clean]

Mr.Clean, you advice is appreciated.

I see you also use a 1.6x camera in the 30D, and was just about to ask you if the 24mm is wide enough for the group shot, architecutre, etc, shots.

Do you feel that I would benefit more from the 16-35 range even after an upgrade to a full frame camera? Or would at that point I be better suited by the 24-70?

Also, since I have the 70-200 range covered, do you feel that the 16 to 24 gap is more important to cover the the 35-70 gap in my scenario with the RXT and these 2 options of lenses?

Thanks again!
No problem! It's always nice to have people to bounce things off of.

24mm can be wide enough for me sometimes, and others, not at all. My old kit lens never had that problem for instance.
I think if you were to upgrade to full frame later, the 24-70 would be a better option. The 16-35 turns into a UWA/Potrait lens in that case. HOWEVER, lot's of people still use the 16-35 on their FF lens. And yet still on the other hand, the same goes for the 24-70. My 10-20 I own doesn't get a lot of use, it's too wide. If I owned a full frame camera and the 16-35, I'd feel the same.

In regards to the gap - again it's up to your personal preference. A nice combo would be the 16-35 and the 50mm 1.4. Both would transition to the full frame nicely. The thing is you might find yourself switching lenses more often but isn't that why we buy SLR's? Plus, if you go architecture, the 16-35 will do the job better than the 24-70, it's just that the 24-70 makes a better "walkaround" lens for me at least.
:D
My vote's for the 16-35, 50, 70-200. That would be impressive. :D

[Tony-S]

16-35 L F/2.8
24-70 L F/2.8
17-55 EF-S F/2.8 ---> ( shying away from this one due to possibly upgrading to a full frame slr in the future )


Keep in mind that if you do go to a full-frame your effective field of view will change. The 16-35 on an XT is a wide to normal lens, but on a full frame it's an UWA to wide.

[splitslim]

Great advice everyone, thank you.

Is there any way that someone could post a picture of a 1.6x camera at 16mm and 24mm. I would be interested to see the difference in field of view. Something open, say at F/8, of the same subject would be incredible.

Thanks!

SS

[gasrocks]

How about the efs 17-55/2.8 IS? It goes well with a 70-200 on a 1.6x body. Quality coverage, though pricey.

[splitslim]

@gasrocks,

I can't justify it to myself to spend that much money on a lens that I would not be able to use if I ever decide to go full frame. Also, although it has had some great reviews, I'm not too impressed with the plastic outer shell, as opposed to the magnesium of L series lenses. Vignetting also seems to be an issue with this lens, I think I read something like 1EV at f/2.8 throughout the focal range. Not a big deal, but good to know.

This would be a lot easier if I had a full frame camera now, but since I don't I'm trying to weigh my options to the best of my ability. 16-24mm would be great with a 1.6x, but not very useful with a full frame, however 24mm may be too long to start with a 1.6x, but perfect with a full frame.

Maybe I should just get both;-)

I'm leaning somewhat to the 24-70, but some of the posts here are making me begin to think differently.

Thanks!

SS

[Mr. Clean]

Try Tamron's focal length site...:D...Until I get samples posted.
http://www.tamroneurope.com/flc.htm

[Mr. Clean]

16mm Wide. 'scuse the mess.

[Mr. Clean]

then 24mm. BIg difference indoors no doubt.
Again, 'scuse the mess.
Also, let it be known that neither of these shots should reflect the lens' capabilities or any photographic merit. :D

[splitslim]

Mr.Clean thank you very much!

I sincerely appreciate you going to the trouble of posting these pictures. I'm suprised actually at how much difference there is visually between 8mm of focal length, and you're right, 16mm would be benefical for a 1.6x camera during group shots. What is impressive is the lack of barrel distortion through our crop cameras at 16mm, even though technicially we're around 25mm.

Is there any chance you can post a picture of the same shot at 50mm? I don't mean to bother you, but I would be interested to see the range I would be missing if I went with the 16-35.

You have given me much to think about.

Thanks again!

SS

[unix04]

the 16~35 on a full frame is like a 10~22 on the 1.6 crop. do you feel you need the 10~22 focal length on your XT? if so, then the 16~35 + 50mm, as mr. clean mentioned might be the best setup while keeping your set at least a little bit 'future-proof'.

if you dont think you'll be needing the 10~22 length on your xt, you will not likely need the 16~35 on your full frame, where you will either sell it or let it collect dust. :P

0.02

mr clean, that couch looks real comfy!!

[Wilt]

Great advice everyone, thank you.

Is there any way that someone could post a picture of a 1.6x camera at 16mm and 24mm. I would be interested to see the difference in field of view. Something open, say at F/8, of the same subject would be incredible.

Thanks!

SS

It is unclear how experienced or how 'virgin' your photographic eye is. 15-36 on APS-C is like 25mm-56 on FF (film) In other words, 'very wide' to 'normal'. The web has examples of FOV with different lenses on 35mm film, so consult them if no one posts APS-C shots with 16-35mm!

[splitslim]

I have used the Tamron site Mr.Clean posted, and have a better idea now. No 50mm shot needed now thanks!

Quick question however. Can I be confident that when I check the exif info on a picture taken with a 1.6x camera, that the focal length is the true focal length of the lens, and not the cropped factor of the camera? For example, when a RAW image I took has information stating that the focal length is 31mm, that it's not 31/1.6? I'm pretty sure its the true lens focal length, but I want to be sure.

After review a bunch of my photos, I'm seeing that I shoot my group shots mostly around the 21-26mm range, which may help me in my decision.

Obviously my wide landscape shots I'm down around 18mm, but these shots are far and few between.

[Wilt]

Quick question however. Can I be confident that when I check the exif info on a picture taken with a 1.6x camera, that the focal length is the true focal length of the lens, and not the cropped factor of the camera? For example, when a RAW image I took has information stating that the focal length is 31mm, that it's not 31/1.6? I'm pretty sure its the true lens focal length, but I want to be sure.


Nothing ever 'converts' a lens focal length...a focal length shown on EXIF is the focal length of the lens. Period, exclamation mark!

[splitslim]

Thanks for the clarification Wilt.

SS

[Tapeman]

Since you will probably buy both the wide and medium zooms, I suggest you buy the wide one first.

[Mr. Clean]

I have used the Tamron site Mr.Clean posted, and have a better idea now. No 50mm shot needed now thanks!

Quick question however. Can I be confident that when I check the exif info on a picture taken with a 1.6x camera, that the focal length is the true focal length of the lens, and not the cropped factor of the camera? For example, when a RAW image I took has information stating that the focal length is 31mm, that it's not 31/1.6? I'm pretty sure its the true lens focal length, but I want to be sure.

After review a bunch of my photos, I'm seeing that I shoot my group shots mostly around the 21-26mm range, which may help me in my decision.

Obviously my wide landscape shots I'm down around 18mm, but these shots are far and few between.

Sounds like you, the 16-35 2.8 and a 50mm 1.4 have a date :D
Or maybe not?
Glad to help! Happy I could...