Who uses 24-70 for Landscape?

i'm curious....
reason being i have a 16-35II and i rarely use it and was thinking of maybe selling it and getting the brick lens instead.
altho i kinda don't want to get rid of the wide angle coz when i do need it, it's excellent.... (maybe i'm just being greedy - i also have a 100-400 which i use once a year for airshows but again, i don't want to get rid of it)

i tend to shoot a lot of portraits with the 50 tho which tells me i really would be benefitting from the 24-70 lens.... but would that be wide enough for group shots? (the close wideangle shots i get of my family from the 16-35 are great!!!)

Check the images you have already taken with the 16-35 and see at what focal length you mostly use it at.

If you do decide to get the 24-70, keep the 16-35 and sell the 18-55.

As always, it depends!
24mm is quite wide on a 1D, but still not a true wide-angle lens. You may be fine for 90% of your landscape shots but you won't be able to take those ultra-wide shots. If you can live without those, that's great.
The brick is very good at portraits, but not as good as a prime. Sometimes you want minimal depth of field, which is easier to get on a 1.x prime, especially if the subject is a bit far away.

Have you considered trading down your 16-35 for a 17-40 and buying a good prime (or the brick) with the difference ?

[QUOTE=Krapo;7252501]A​s always, it depends!
24mm is quite wide on a 1D, but still not a true wide-angle lens. You may be fine for 90% of your landscape shots but you won't be able to take those ultra-wide shots. If you can live without those, that's great.
The brick is very good at portraits, but not as good as a prime. Sometimes you want minimal depth of field, which is easier to get on a 1.x prime, especially if the subject is a bit far away.

Have you considered trading down your 16-35 for a 17-40 and buying a good prime (or the brick) with the difference ?[/quot
if you're using the 16-36 just for landscapes, trading down to the 17-40 might make sense. 24mm i believe is something like 31-32mm on a 1d. maybe wide enough for most, maybe not for you.

thanks for the replies... i tend to shoot portraits more than landscapes..
i'd love to get a 70-200 2.8 for portraits as well

i never thought about going down that 17-40 route.... might be an option..

I use my brick for landscapes sometimes as I find the 16-35 to wide at times.

muscleflex wrote in post #7252429
i'm curious....
reason being i have a 16-35II and i rarely use it and was thinking of maybe selling it and getting the brick lens instead.

Nah, you'll regret doing that Trust me.
I'm on 1.3x as well...
The 16-35 handles like a charm, it's light and manageable compared to the brick. You'll see

I use the 16-35 oftentimes at below 20 when I don't care much about distortion since I'm looking to crop the center portion. Other than that, on 1.3x distortion disappears around 20, so yeah, technically you can get around with the 24-70 since you're only losing 4mm. But again, I wouldn't do it. If budget is a question, sell the 16-35 and replace it with a 17-40. There, you recuperated 50% of 24-70's value.

But let aside questions concerning the 16-35, yeah DO get the brick. That's a gem.

muscleflex wrote in post #7252429
i tend to shoot a lot of portraits with the 50 tho which tells me i really would be benefitting from the 24-70 lens.... but would that be wide enough for group shots? (the close wideangle shots i get of my family from the 16-35 are great!!!)

Only you should know the answer to that.
You certainly aren't using it at 16mm.
So examine a few of your best pics and find out what was the value.
If you get around 24, your got your answer.

muscleflex wrote in post #7258381
thanks for the replies...i tend to shoot portraits more than landscapes..
i'd love to get a 70-200 2.8 for portraits as well

i never thought about going down that 17-40 route.... might be an option..

you'd be better off with the brick then. i love the 16-35L II on the 1d mark III but i tend not to shoot alot of formal type portraits.

ed rader

I use my 24-70 for everything on my 5D... great width for landscapes as well

Here's a couple of shots with the 24-70 on my 40D............great for landscapes.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i56.photobucket​.com …/Las%20Vegas/IM​G_0400.jpg

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i56.photobucket​.com …/Las%20Vegas/IM​G_0811.jpg

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i56.photobucket​.com …/Las%20Vegas/IM​G_0818.jpg

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i56.photobucket​.com …/Las%20Vegas/IM​G_0821.jpg

I use the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm - - great combo! I have a 1Ds2 sitting the PO waiting for me to pick it up tomorrow. Totally pumped about having a wide-angle back again.

Keep the 16-35, sell the 100-400, buy the 24-70 and if you literally only use the 100-400 once a year rent one for the air show. Problem solved

I use the 24-70 and the 35L mostly for landscapes, then again, I use it on the 5D. The 17-40 was just way too wide for my shooting style so I sold it.

I use the 24-70L for landscapes a lot of the time. BUT... I generally use it on the full-frame 5D... (although I did use it on the 10D before that).

EXIF intact in these samples:

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO