Is 24mm wide enough for most of you?

[vvizard]

I'm saving money for my next lens-purchase. Of all things I shoot, what I like the most is motorsports (all kinds mostly). But I shoot mostly anything else too, so I want some general-purpose lenses and not just long ones. I got the 50 1.4 USM, and the 70-200 2.8 EX. 200mm have proven more than long enough for mostly anything I do, but 50mm have proven not nearly as wide as I need sometimes :( Therefore I want a lens for shooting candids in depots, and for general nature-photography, and a urban walk-around lens. I got three on my list:

17-40 f4L
16-35 f2.8L
24-70 f2.8L

I really don't fancy f4 aparture, as I shoot quite a bit indoor, and I also have to fight myself through the Norwegian winter each year, where we don't have good light for more than a few small hours each day.

Guess the 24-70 is the one I _really_ want, since I've heard so much good about it. But so have I heard about the others there to :/ The 24-70 is also quite a bit cheaper than the 16-35 at the moment. What I'm concerned about now, is if 24mm is wide enough for most or your shots? What would you rather had if you had to choose:

24-70, 50, 70-200 or..
16-35, 50, 70-200

[slin100]

Unquestionably the 16-35. 24mm is not that wide on a 1.6x crop factor.

[Whaler]

My 17-40 f/4 L is my favorite lens. Priced right too.

[Whaler]

My 17-40 f/4 L is my favorite lens. Priced right too.

[Scottes]

I've got the 17-40 and 50 and 70-200. When using the 17-40 I think that about half of my shots are in the middle somewhere - 24-28mm. The rest were either at 17 or 40. To me, 17mm - even on a 10D - looks weird. Maybe I've seen many 17mm photos which have looked fine but when *I* know I took a scene at 17mm then it looks weird.

I could live with 24mm, but it killed me when my 50 was the widest. And I'd jump at the 24-70 given half an excuse.

So the 24-70 has my vote.


Edit: I think that eventually you'll get a wider lens, though.

[Cadwell]

I find the 17-40L very useful for paddock work at motorsports events and motorshows. It enables me to get shots of cars whilst standing close enough to discourage people from wandering in front of me.

[Canuck]

vvizard,
I use the 16-35 and 24-70 about the same. I have found that they both work great. Just be warned, you will get some distortion at 16mm w/ the 16-35mm. The only real difference is that you get a few more mm of zooming back (8mm) that you wouldn't otherwise. It can be a lot or none to speak of. I shoot a lot of landscape pics and I found the 24-70 was perfect except for a few times when in Scotland. The 16mm at that stage woulda been overkill. I might have to do some pics to illustrate the difference but the soonest that will happen is next week. I have ton of stuff going on at the moment. I'd go for the 24-70 as it is cheaper and more zoom and will match up to the 70-200 you already have. I found the gap that I once had from 35mm-120mm really sucked so I got the 24-70 and now the gap is 70-120mm. My vote is the 24-70 and then if you find it isn't wide enough, get the 16-35 later.

[vvizard]

Unquestionably the 16-35. 24mm is not that wide on a 1.6x crop factor.

I know, but remember, 80mm have been my "widest" for half a year, and I'm getting along quite nicely, as my shooting usually requires (135mm * 1.6x = 216mm). The 24-70 would be a great "allround" lens for me, as it's widest part could be long enough to be usefull in much of my work actually. 40mm wouldn't :/ But sometimes a really wide angle could be cool too... I'm going mad again I think :( June is the month where I should expect to get my tax-return, my vacation-money for last year, and my salary as I'm not taking any summer-vacation this year =D So I need a plan for spending those money before they're spent on beer ;)

16-35, 24-70 or Laptop... hard decisions.. :( Or maybe.. If I sell my 50mm (cheap enough to buy later), I can maybe afford both laptop and 17-40mm.. That would be awsome =D But again.. The choices are driving me maaad :-P

[vvizard]

I find the 17-40L very useful for paddock work at motorsports events and motorshows. It enables me to get shots of cars whilst standing close enough to discourage people from wandering in front of me.

The point about discouraging people to walk in front of you is really great though.. I hate that, yet it happens _ALL_ the time with my 50mm, as to frame a whole car from the side with my 50mm, I have to be like 7-10 metres away or so :-P

[vvizard]

vvizard,
I use the 16-35 and 24-70 about the same. I have found that they both work great. Just be warned, you will get some distortion at 16mm w/ the 16-35mm. The only real difference is that you get a few more mm of zooming back (8mm) that you wouldn't otherwise. It can be a lot or none to speak of. I shoot a lot of landscape pics and I found the 24-70 was perfect except for a few times when in Scotland. The 16mm at that stage woulda been overkill. I might have to do some pics to illustrate the difference but the soonest that will happen is next week. I have ton of stuff going on at the moment. I'd go for the 24-70 as it is cheaper and more zoom and will match up to the 70-200 you already have. I found the gap that I once had from 35mm-120mm really sucked so I got the 24-70 and now the gap is 70-120mm. My vote is the 24-70 and then if you find it isn't wide enough, get the 16-35 later.

The distortition-part is that worse on the 16-35 than on the 17-40? Cause I've only heard good things about the 17-40. Is the 16-35 optically weaker?

And how about the 24-70 against the 16-35 or 17-40? Which one gives the best looking results? Guess I have about just as many reasons to go with either of them, so I can of course let quality decide. I've heard the 24-70 is _STUNNING_ but is it noticeable better than the 17-40 or 16-35?

[slin100]

To me, 17mm - even on a 10D - looks weird. Maybe I've seen many 17mm photos which have looked fine but when *I* know I took a scene at 17mm then it looks weird.

You must not be used to wide angles, because 17mm on a 10D has the FOV of a 28mm lens full-frame.

[Scottes]

You must not be used to wide angles, because 17mm on a 10D has the FOV of a 28mm lens full-frame.

Yep, I figure that I'll get used to it. We see the world at the eye's "normal 50mm" - but it's worse because I wear glasses, and the loss of peripheral vision means that it's more like 70mm. Looking at a scene from my "eyesight at 70mm" to looking at the picture of the scene at 17mm is weird.

If I looked at the picture again in 2 or 3 months - enough time to forget the scene as I saw it - then I'd probably be fine.

[martcol]

Definately go for 24-70 f2.8L. The only other lens I have at that end is the Sigma 15-30 which rarely gets a look!

Martin

[Guillermo Freige]

I love my Sigma 12-24. Not an easy lens at 12mm because the extreme perspectives when the lens isn't aligned and not pointing to the horizon, but I really like the extreme coverage of it even at 1.6x crop (19-38 equivalence).

[Canuck]

vvizard,
I use the 16-35 and 24-70 about the same. I have found that they both work great. Just be warned, you will get some distortion at 16mm w/ the 16-35mm. The only real difference is that you get a few more mm of zooming back (8mm) that you wouldn't otherwise. It can be a lot or none to speak of. I shoot a lot of landscape pics and I found the 24-70 was perfect except for a few times when in Scotland. The 16mm at that stage woulda been overkill. I might have to do some pics to illustrate the difference but the soonest that will happen is next week. I have ton of stuff going on at the moment. I'd go for the 24-70 as it is cheaper and more zoom and will match up to the 70-200 you already have. I found the gap that I once had from 35mm-120mm really sucked so I got the 24-70 and now the gap is 70-120mm. My vote is the 24-70 and then if you find it isn't wide enough, get the 16-35 later.

The distortition-part is that worse on the 16-35 than on the 17-40? Cause I've only heard good things about the 17-40. Is the 16-35 optically weaker?

And how about the 24-70 against the 16-35 or 17-40? Which one gives the best looking results? Guess I have about just as many reasons to go with either of them, so I can of course let quality decide. I've heard the 24-70 is _STUNNING_ but is it noticeable better than the 17-40 or 16-35?

I don't think it is any worse for the optical wear, so to speak. Remember that about 16mm you start hitting fisheye lenses. I'd say that 17/18ish the distortion is better. I have to find that pic I took in Colchester. I had to go super wide to get the whole castle but paid the price. I am having trouble locating the pic I am talking about. I will have to get back with you. End of the day, either L lens you can't go wrong with.

[Tom W]

I have both the 17-40 and the 24-70. I really like them both, but I'm pretty sure that if I had gotten the 24-70 first, I might not have bought the 17-40. Not because I don't like the wider zoom, but because I cover a good part of its range with the larger, faster, and more versatile lens.

Of course, a lot of that depends on what you intend to shoot. If you shoot a good deal of architecture with narrow streets, the wider lens is a must.

[defordphoto]

I wasn't happy at 28 and knew I would not be satisfied with 24. The 17-40 was a sweet addition to my bag.

[vvizard]

I understand the 28-70 won't fullfill my wide-end dreams, and a 16-35 or 17-40 will compliment it some time in the future when I can afford it. But at the moment I have to ask what I need the most, and I think the 28-70 range will see more action than the 16-28 will. And if I can close this deal, then it's quite a bargain at nearly half the price. Cause no matter if I buy the 28-70 or the 16-35 first, I know the other will probably be my next lens-purchase anyway (except that I probably first have to buy back my 50mm 1.4, as I do some (really) low-light shooting now and then. But the 50 is quite cheap anyway.

[CoolToolGuy]

I have the 24-70 L and it is my default lens. Below that range (38mm equivalent in a full frame) I want a 24mm equivalent, and that equates to a 15mm lens. I skipped the wide-angle zoom and went for a Tamron 14mm f2.8 SP. It is an exceptional lens, it is a good length on my Drebel, and it is fast.

I have used a 24mm extensively with film, including pit and paddock work at motorsports events, and I love what it produces. Until I get a 1D or another body with a crop factor less than 1.6 I will probably stick with the 14mm. This weekend will be the test.

[MrChevy]

No. You have to remember on our cameras the 16-35 is a 26-56 lens. We both (the wife and I) shoot with Canon 16-35's so we have two of those. In our bag right now we have:

D60/BG-ED3
10D/BG-ED3
Canon 16-35L
Canon 16-35L
Canon 28-105
Canon 28-135 IS
Canon 50:1.8 Mk I
Canon 70-200L IS
Canon 75-300 IS
Canon 100 Macro
Canon 400 5.6L

We like to take landscape shots and just LOVE the 16-35 lens, thus having two of them.

With our 28-1?5 lenses we haven't seen the need to purchase 24-70L's yet. If Ani (the wife) can finally get a job, then we would like to get a couple of 1D MkII's :shock: but that is a LOT of money for us. I really think you would like the 16-35L. We really enjoy using ours.

Ken

[defordphoto]

I understand the 28-70 won't fullfill my wide-end dreams, and a 16-35 or 17-40 will compliment it some time in the future when I can afford it. But at the moment I have to ask what I need the most, and I think the 28-70 range will see more action than the 16-28 will. And if I can close this deal, then it's quite a bargain at nearly half the price. Cause no matter if I buy the 28-70 or the 16-35 first, I know the other will probably be my next lens-purchase anyway (except that I probably first have to buy back my 50mm 1.4, as I do some (really) low-light shooting now and then. But the 50 is quite cheap anyway.

And before I got the 17-40 the 28-135 was the walkaround. Now we have two walkarounds. We'll see what becomes the walkaround on the MKII when I get it.

[vvizard]

I wouldn't used any "walkaround" lenses on the MK-II until the market-demand for that camera have been met =D How far wouldn't you've been willing to go, if you suddenly saw a guy walking around whistling and looking for juatabird outside your house with a MK-II around his neck :lol:

[eric1]

allbeit a great lense, i don't yet feel i need the 24-70. i use the 17-40
for wide. i also have a 50 1.4, and the 70-200F4. for now this is working out good. i use the 28-135 as my walk around lens.

thanks,
eric1

[Tom W]

allbeit a great lense, i don't yet feel i need the 24-70. i use the 17-40
for wide. i also have a 50 1.4, and the 70-200F4. for now this is working out good. i use the 28-135 as my walk around lens.

thanks,
eric1

Ironically, the 17-40 would have worked just fine for me today - most of my shots were between 24 and 50 and I might have been able to go wider for a greater representation of size of the object I was shooting (A train engine in this case).

I usually find myself in that 24-70 range, both indoors and out so it is a vital lens in my lineup. If I had to give up all lenses but one, the 24-70 would be the one I would keep.

[iwatkins]

I have to agree with Guillermo, the Sigma 12-24mm is a great lens.

I use it most as a landscape lens, tripod mounted etc. and perfectly level. In this mode you don't really see the extreme distortion/perspective changes.

However, if you get up close to your subject, you can have a lot of fun. In the shots below I was tens of inches close to the subject, rather than feet from it. Great at motorshows as there isn't a chance in hell of anybody walking in front of you. ;)

Cheers

Ian


http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~iwatkins/Gallery/1224-1.jpg

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~iwatkins/Gallery/1224-2.jpg

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~iwatkins/Gallery/1224-3.jpg

[robvonk]

I have the 20-35 from canon and i'm thinking of buying the 17-40 because i really miss the wide angle. I miss it especially in cities where you can't walk backwards because of all the buildings.

I had the 20-30 on my analog EOS so i know what it can be to go wide... :)

[Andy_T]

Vvizard,

definitely take a look at the Tamron 28-75 /2.8 XR DI as well!

This and the 17-40 can most likely be bought at the cost of the 24-70 L.

Best regards,
Andy

[vvizard]

Thanks, I will :) But I really like to join the L-club now to find out what all this fuzz is all about =) But if the tamron is a fixed 2.8 it looks interesting. The Sigma ain't that attractive to me because it doesn't have a fixed aperture. I really like the idea of 2.8 coverage all the way from 16-200mm some time in the future, and compliment them with even faster primes possible at 20, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200. At the end of my lifetime, I guess I've afforded all those =D

[Guillermo Freige]

My favorite "really wide" shot taken with the 12-24 (at 12 of course) :)

http://gfreige.homelinux.org/gallery/photos/normal/DR_4698.jpg

[vvizard]

Wow, that perspective _IS_ impressive, no doubt :shock: But for the moment I think I wan't the 28-70 or 24-70, because if I sell of my 50mm to afford a new lens, my only lens is the 70-200, and by buying the 24-70, I can get constant f/2.8 coverage all the way from 24-200mm, and that sounds quite usefull to me. If I buy the sigma instead, I will have a gap from 24 - 70, and.... there won't be money left to fill it :/ But darn, that gave an idea.. That lens might be what I'm looking for instead of the 16-35 when time, err.. money for another lens comes.. But that won't happen anytime soon, so I got plenty of time to think about that one =) Thanks for showing me this shot btw.

[martcol]

[quote="Guillermo Freige"]My favorite "really wide" shot taken with the 12-24 [quote]

Guillermo, that really is a lovely shot...

Martin