Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 05 Jun 2011 (Sunday) 11:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 16-35L or 24-70L?

 
undrskor
Member
66 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: So. Cal, US
     
Jun 05, 2011 11:06 |  #1

I currently own a 60d and shoot photos and video. I plan on upgrading to full frame in the near future, but want to get your opinion on which L lens would be better to buy in the long run. Thanks.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
dalto
Senior Member
Avatar
758 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Austin, TX
     
Jun 05, 2011 11:11 |  #2

It all depends what you most frequently take pictures of.

On FF the 24-70 is a traditional normal zoom lens. Good for walking around as well indoor photography.

On FF the 16-35 is a wide angle zoom. Good for landscapes, larger scenes indoors and general WA photography.

What focal lengths do you find yourself using most often now?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fricks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
23,028 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 48
Joined Jan 2011
     
Jun 05, 2011 11:11 |  #3

24-70


website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pingman
Senior Member
Avatar
416 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Apr 2011
Location: DFW Metro
     
Jun 05, 2011 11:52 |  #4

Although I love my 16-35 I think you would get more use out of the 24-70. I use the 16-35 for Architectural interior/exterior, cars and landscapes. I tend to mount the 24-105 for people and things moving around. But Dalto is right, it depends on the subject matter you currently shoot.


(Gear & Feedback)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 116
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Jun 05, 2011 11:58 |  #5

Fricks wrote in post #12539771 (external link)
24-70

Given OP says FF is on the way, definitely.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Fricks
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
23,028 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 48
Joined Jan 2011
     
Jun 05, 2011 14:14 |  #6

S.Horton wrote in post #12539951 (external link)
Given OP says FF is on the way, definitely.

Exactly:D


website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
undrskor
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
66 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: So. Cal, US
     
Jun 05, 2011 14:14 |  #7

I shoot cars and nightlife/club scene. Should I just get both? Or is that overkill? Thanks for the input guys.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,753 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5125
Joined May 2002
Location: Cannelton
     
Jun 05, 2011 14:35 |  #8

Buy lenses for what you have today. When you go to full-frame, you will not lose much, if any, on the lenses should you have to change over to a new set of focal lengths. IMO, it is very stupid to tie your "creative photographic" hands now by purchasing lenses that limit the body you use now, just for some future plan to change format later. Too many plan their glass purchases this way, instead of matching glass to their bodies now, regardless of what that might mean later. This means that perhaps even EFS lenses should be used if you have an EFS-ready body. You could have both a great UWA and a great walkaround lens designed for the 60D for a total price that is lower than one of the Ls, for example.

If you have the cash, and could afford both, then get both, that is the only real alternative answer to this question when it comes up.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dalto
Senior Member
Avatar
758 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Austin, TX
     
Jun 05, 2011 14:37 |  #9

undrskor wrote in post #12540504 (external link)
I shoot cars and nightlife/club scene.

I would probably choose the 16-35 for these applications personally.

undrskor wrote in post #12540504 (external link)
Should I just get both?

Yes

undrskor wrote in post #12540504 (external link)
Or is that overkill? Thanks for the input guys.

You may be asking the wrong group of people.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 83
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Jun 05, 2011 15:45 |  #10

Will you be keeping the 60D and using it alongside the FF camera? If so, it wouldn't hurt to have a crop only UWA lens, just for use on the 60D. I can tell you that the Tokina 12-24/4 will fit and work on FF, at least to 18 or 19mm wide. I haven't tried it, but have heard that the 11-16/2.8 Toki can be used at 16mm on FF. The Canon 10-22 EF-S can't even be fitted onto 5DII (at least not without some "modification" with a Dremel tool ;))

I mention these because 16mm really isn't all that wide on a crop camera. Oh, and don't be an "L-coholic". Canon L are good, but not the only good lenses out there... Some great lenses just don't happen to have a red stripe painted on them. EF-S 17-55 for example.

But another possibility that will work on both is 17-40L. Of course, it's F4, so might not be great for club shooting, unless you are using flash.

Personally I use a pair of 7D and a 5DII. My zoom kit for both includes 24-70 and 70-200/2.8 IS. But I also have 12-24/4 Toki for the crop cameras. And I have 20/2.8 prime for use on the FF, when wider is needed. Of course, 16-35 or 17-40 would be considerably wider on FF... but 20mm is wide enough for me.

We don't know what other lenses you might already have. That makes it more difficult to give suggestions.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tealtele
Senior Member
318 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: California
     
Jun 05, 2011 17:04 |  #11

I'd get the 16-35L, 24-70 on a crop is 38-112mm, a decent walkaround but not very wide at all. 16mm will be more useful(24mm on crop), and then absolutely come alive when you get fullframe. Some would find it limiting because it only goes to a 50mm equivalent, but I usually switch to something longer if I want more reach than that anyway.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sun5150
Member
160 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2007
     
Jun 05, 2011 20:44 as a reply to  @ Tealtele's post |  #12

I bought a used 16-35 II a month ago. I don't think the pictures are sharp at all at 2.8.
Even stopping down the edges and corners are bad.
I might send to Canon to have it looked at.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 116
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Jun 05, 2011 20:46 |  #13

sun5150 wrote in post #12542156 (external link)
I bought a used 16-35 II a month ago. I don't think the pictures are sharp at all at 2.8.
Even stopping down the edges and corners are bad.
I might send to Canon to have it looked at.

Yep. Mine was always very sharp. The corners you will never be very happy with wide open.

The downside to the 16-35 is the barrel distortion.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
undrskor
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
66 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Location: So. Cal, US
     
Jun 05, 2011 23:59 |  #14

Okay thank you all for your feedback. I will take all this into consideration when I make my purchase.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,103 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 16-35L or 24-70L?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Martin Leitch
776 guests, 269 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.