16-35mm vs 70-200mm f/2.8L

[MoliroMan]

Hello,

I am still struggling to decide whether to buy a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L lens or a 70-200mm f/2.8L lens which i will be using mostly for taking ultrasharp portraits, maybe landscape with people in it and aquarium photography.

The 16-35 will cost me AU $2400 and the 70-200 AU $2800.

Please help me with the decision making process because i can't make up my mind which lens will be most suited to me. Also it is a big investment.

I have as Canon 350D/Rebel XT with EFS 17-85mm IS USM lens and EF macro 100mm f/2.8 lens.

Also my wife will either kill me or divorce me if she finds out i bought a new lens. A 70-200 will be very obvious even for her!!!! I will have to hide in the bushes and use the lens :D


Thanks

Dave

[Sean-Mcr]

The 16-35 is not really a portrait lens, i think you'd be better of with a 50mm prime or the 85 1.8 or the 85 F1.2L

I had the 16-35 i returned it, i bought it for the extra stop over the 17-40 and for me it was too soft at 2.8 and seeing as you want ultra sharp, you'd have to stop it down so you might as well buy the 17-40. I have the 50mm f1.4 and the 85 f1.8 and they take much better portraits and are better too if you like available light

The 70-200 would be the better choice out of the two lenses for portraits

[tim]

Sean has a good point, 16-35 isn't a portrait lens, and neither is the the 70-200. I think you need to work out your priorities and what you'll be taking more photos of.

Your 17-85 covers a good range for both of these tasks, what's the problem with using it?

[radar-eclipse]

Get the divorce. When chicks see how big your new lens is, they'll be right over. Just kidding!
The 85mm 1.8 is great, sharp and small. I would lean toward the 70-200 but not if it's going to bring grief.

[KevC]

Ultrasharp portraits would be prime-land :) Pick up the 85/1.8 and save yourself a bunch of money. Also consider the 50/1.4 (or if you want to save even more, everyone should have the 50/1.8 hahaha).

The 70-200 is also a nice portrait lens, but when I think portraits, the convience of zooms isn't really required. It's much slower paced and you should be able to move around and "foot" zoom. Pick up a few primes for your desired focal lengths (perspective). 50/1.4, 85/1.8, maybe even the 135/2L but that's a pricey one hehe.

//edit: I just saw that you have the 100 macro. You can also try using that for portraits, it's surgically sharp though. :) You already have the 17-85 so use that at the wide end for landscapes. It'll be sharp while stopped down, I'm sure. You need deep DOF for landscapes anyway, right? :D

[tim]

Also consider the 50/1.4 (or if you want to save even more, everyone should have the 50/1.8 hahaha).

It's cheaper to buy the 1.4 straight off than buying the 1.8, finding out it's crap, then replacing it with the 1.4 That's what i've done.

[boomerang]

Same here I bought the 50mm 1.8 than went to the 1.4 within a week.

[grego]

The 70-200 can be a portrait lens, but if your only goal is portraits, get something else. However, if you photograph lots of things, the 70-200 f/2.8 is as versatile as it gets.

[Maureen Souza]

I use the 50mm/1.4 for portraits and the 16-35mm/2.8 for wide angle shots.... large groups and scenery.

[Longwatcher]

You apparently already have a 17-85, so you will gain the most by getting the 70-200/2.8L.

The 70-200/2.8L is an excellent portrait lens (although a prime 50 or 85 would be better on your camera), for aquarium shots, I lean towards the 70-200 again over the 16-35. But for Landscapes, the 16-35 wins.

As to wife and the 70-200, just tell her it is a white lens because it is a consumer lens designed to go with a silver camera. If she actually buys that story, you should have no problem getting the 16-35 later.

Just my experience and opinion.

[kawter2]

have you considered the 135 2.0?

I know it is very unconventional for ports, but I have seen some AMAZING portrait stuff with it.

Only consider it if a.) you have time to compose and you aren't limited by space, and b.) You really don't shoot ultra low light (i.e. wedding in a cathedral)

[clicky]

What's wrong with your 100 f/2.8? It's a very fine lens indeed, even portraits!!!? It gives you razorsharp images and a comfortable 3-4 meter range when doing portraits...?

[MoliroMan]

Thanks guys for all your replies!

I am even more confused than i was before i asked this question! As u can see i am a total newbie to digital slr photography. I am so tempted to get a "L" lens for the wow factor but don't know if i should fork out such an investment.

As many have said maybe i should just stick with my macro 100mm f/2.8 lens. I have been advised to get the 50 f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.8 but out of these 2 will i notice any improvement over the shots taken with my macro lens? Is it worthwhile to get another lens that can do the same job?

Should i just buy a top quality general purpose 24-70 f/2.8L lens or should i take the plunge and buy the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens?

Also am i just buying Rolls Royce lens for a Toyota Digital camera ie. r these top quality lenses wasted on my Digital SLR 350D/Rebel XT?

thx
Dave

[tim]

Like I said before, what's do you need that your current lenses don't do?

The 100mm macro's a great portrait lens, I did this (http://www.mrwild.co.nz/Featured/Models/slides/IMG_9336.html) with mine. Your existing lens should be fine for landscapes.

[roanjohn]

Also am i just buying Rolls Royce lens for a Toyota Digital camera ie. r these top quality lenses wasted on my Digital SLR 350D/Rebel XT?

thx
Dave

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

In any case, back to the question:

How about a bit of a compromise??

17-40 f4L, 200 f2.8L and 85 f1.8.

Three superb lenses for the price of a 70-200 f2.8 IS.

Ro1

[mrclark321]

Nothing wrong with the XT!!!!