Lens Dilemma

[Freff]

Currently I own a 1Dn and in the new year have the opportunity to use a FF 1D or 5D on a regular basis with my 1DN. I personally own a 70-200IS a Tamron 28-75 XR Di and 50 f1.4. I also use the Canon 16-35 f2.8 and 100-400 which are pool lenses. (see gear)

Next year I have the choice of either keeping the Canon 16-35 f2.8L permanently or having a new Canon 24-70 f2.8L, again permanently.

My main area is sports shooting with a mixture of events and general PJ.

My dilemma is, which of the two lenses do I choose. Any suggestions and reasons why I should choose between these two would be a great help. Many thanks.

[SkipD]

On a larger format camera ("full-frame" digital or 35mm film), the 16-35 focal length range is considered ultra-wide-angle. I don't think it would be nearly as useful on a regular basis as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L.

The Canon 24-70 has to be one of the finest zoom lenses that Canon builds. It is optically stellar, and it has a feature that is unmatched with any other lens (except for its predecessor the 28-70) that I know of. That feature is the lens hood provided with it coupled with the fact the the lens extends when going towards the shorter focal lengths. This makes the lens hood ideal at all focal lengths. No other zoom lens/hood combination that I have ever seen or heard of does this.

[stupot]

On a larger format camera ("full-frame" digital or 35mm film), the 16-35 focal length range is considered ultra-wide-angle. I don't think it would be nearly as useful on a regular basis as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L.

The Canon 24-70 has to be one of the finest zoom lenses that Canon builds. It is optically stellar, and it has a feature that is unmatched with any other lens (except for its predecessor the 28-70) that I know of. That feature is the lens hood provided with it coupled with the fact the the lens extends when going towards the shorter focal lengths. This makes the lens hood ideal at all focal lengths. No other zoom lens/hood combination that I have ever seen or heard of does this.

Hi skip can you just clarify what you mean here? I'm interested:) Do you mean that the hood is attached to the non moving body of the lens, so that when you zoom out (and therefore require a smaller hood to avoid vignetting), the front element extends through the hood, thus making the hood smaller? I'm thinking of selling my longer lenses for something more useful, the 24-70 could be on the list, so want to know as much as i can about it!

Thanks!

Stu

[ofdphoto]

That sounds right Stu. It's a rather cool feature of the 24-70. Even aesthetically it's significantly nicer than, say, the 24-105.

[condyk]

Given what else you have I would go for the widey.

[grego]

PJ wise, the two best lens are the 16-35 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS.The 24-70 or 28-70 would come in 3rd place in order of importance.

PJ is about wide or tight. Both those two lens cover that. And of course for sports, you have the "other" expensive glass. :)


I have the 1DMKII and 30D to give you some background. Have the 70-200 2.8IS and the 16-35 2.8.
Here's a mixture of it from the UCLA-USC game. You can see the usefulness of the 16-35 for the fan stuff.
http://www.dailybruin.com/slideshows/2006/12/04/football/slideshow.html

[SkipD]

Hi skip can you just clarify what you mean here? I'm interested:) Do you mean that the hood is attached to the non moving body of the lens, so that when you zoom out (and therefore require a smaller hood to avoid vignetting), the front element extends through the hood, thus making the hood smaller? I'm thinking of selling my longer lenses for something more useful, the 24-70 could be on the list, so want to know as much as i can about it!You have it precisely correct about the hood, Stu. It mounts to the shell of the lens with a 1/4-turn bayonet connection and never touches the moving portion of the lens.

My 24-70 f/2.8L is screwed to my 20D much more often than my 16-35 f/2.8L or my 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

[Freff]

Thanks for your quick responses. Given that one of these lenses will be mine and the 1DN is also my own camera, I have to take into account the 1.3 crop factor. SkipD mentions the ultra wide on FF, so long term I am thinking about it coupled to the 1DN more often. (when pool lenses are no longer available) I love the idea of the 24-70 it's a great lens. It being the cheaper of the two lenses it will be less expensive to buy later if I choose the 16-35 as the freebie. As grego says the 16-35 and 70-200 are perfect for PJ which I want to do more of later on. Bugger, decisions decisions.:confused: :confused: