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 25 May 2009 (Monday) 16:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35 2.8 II vs 24-70 2.8

 
Veger
Member
50 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Orange County, CA (SoCal)
     
May 25, 2009 16:54 |  #1

Ok, these are my potential range options at the moment.

Option 1:
16-35 2.8 II, 50mm 1.8 prime, 70-200 f/4L
Option 2:
24-70 2.8 L and 70-200 f/4L

I cannot decide if I'm willing to sacrifice that 16mm for 24mm.
I currently have a 17-85 IS, and I would essentially be replacing it.
Even with 17mm, I get a semi-"fisheye" effect, but when I put my lens at 24mm I seem to lose it.

I'm not really experienced yet, but I might be looking into wedding photography in the future. I'm going to do some free engagement photos for a friend, but I also like landscape/general walking around/being with friends.

I really really like the wideness of the 16-35, but I'm leaning towards the versatility of the 24-70. I can't decide if close-ups/groups photos would be ok with the 24mm, or if I'm willing to give up the 35-50mm and 50-70mm.

Any suggestions? Opinions? Thoughts?


Canon 40D / Canon 17-85 IS / (Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8) / (70-200 F/4 L) / 1.4 Extender / 430 EX

Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/34548213@N07/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Kruzkal
Senior Member
393 posts
Joined Apr 2008
     
May 25, 2009 17:57 |  #2

If you plan on staying with the APS-C system I would suggest something like 10-22 and 17-55 as opposed to either 16-35 II or 24-70 to be honest.

Something like:

17-55 standard workhorse
10-22 creative wide angle
35L portrait fast prime
70-200 f/2.8 IS candid tele




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Veger
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
50 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Orange County, CA (SoCal)
     
May 25, 2009 20:49 as a reply to  @ Kruzkal's post |  #3

When i win the lottery I plan on getting myself a 5D MII. So I'm not planning on staying @ the 40D forever.


Canon 40D / Canon 17-85 IS / (Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8) / (70-200 F/4 L) / 1.4 Extender / 430 EX

Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/34548213@N07/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yalemba
Senior Member
Avatar
635 posts
Joined Sep 2003
     
May 27, 2009 19:09 |  #4

Veger wrote in post #7986052 (external link)
Ok, these are my potential range options at the moment.

Option 1:
16-35 2.8 II, 50mm 1.8 prime, 70-200 f/4L
Option 2:
24-70 2.8 L and 70-200 f/4L

I cannot decide if I'm willing to sacrifice that 16mm for 24mm.
I currently have a 17-85 IS, and I would essentially be replacing it.
Even with 17mm, I get a semi-"fisheye" effect, but when I put my lens at 24mm I seem to lose it.

I'm not really experienced yet, but I might be looking into wedding photography in the future. I'm going to do some free engagement photos for a friend, but I also like landscape/general walking around/being with friends.

I really really like the wideness of the 16-35, but I'm leaning towards the versatility of the 24-70. I can't decide if close-ups/groups photos would be ok with the 24mm, or if I'm willing to give up the 35-50mm and 50-70mm.

Any suggestions? Opinions? Thoughts?

As an owner of both 16-35mm II and 24-70mm lenses, I can tell you that 16-35mm is clearly a superior lens when it comes to wide-angle shots. For some reasons, my 24-70mm never produced the sharp pictures that come out of my 16-35mm II or 85 1.2L...

Here is a link to some recent shots with 16-35mm II
http://indus.smugmug.c​om/share/VUBkViyx2VMHs (external link)


Cameras: 1DX, 1Ds Mark III
Lenses: 24 TSE II, 50L, 85L II, 24-70L II, 70-200L II
Flash: 600 EX with STE3, Einstein

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
May 27, 2009 20:21 |  #5

Veger wrote in post #7987323 (external link)
When i win the lottery I plan on getting myself a 5D MII. So I'm not planning on staying @ the 40D forever.

Will this be in the next 4 weeks?

Buy a 17-55. At the very least, throw out the 16-35, since you're paying an extra $500 for a gain in absolutely nothing. On top of that, I'll throw another cog in: the 17-55 outresolves the 24-70.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rklepper
Dignity-Esteem-Compassion
Avatar
8,994 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2003
Location: No longer living at the center of the known universe, moved just slightly to the right. Iowa, USA.
     
May 27, 2009 22:28 |  #6

toxic wrote in post #8000977 (external link)
Will this be in the next 4 weeks?

Buy a 17-55. At the very least, throw out the 16-35, since you're paying an extra $500 for a gain in absolutely nothing. On top of that, I'll throw another cog in: the 17-55 outresolves the 24-70.

Can you please post the photos you have taken with both that demonstrate this? Thanks, but a statement like this if you do not own both and have not shot them side by side does no one any good. Please post away.


Doc Klepper in the USA
I
am a photorealist, I like my photos with a touch of what was actually there.
Polite C&C always welcome, Thanks. Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TylerCP
Member
Avatar
62 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Winnipeg
     
May 27, 2009 22:41 |  #7

toxic wrote in post #8000977 (external link)
Will this be in the next 4 weeks?

Buy a 17-55. At the very least, throw out the 16-35, since you're paying an extra $500 for a gain in absolutely nothing. On top of that, I'll throw another cog in: the 17-55 outresolves the 24-70.


If anything you pay for the ability to use that great lens on a full frame or 1.3x crop body if you ever upgrade, or win that lottery. Sure the 17-55 is nice, but if you can't upgrade and use it, its not my cup of tea.


Gear List
Portfolio (external link)
Arenas with that one red light bother my white balance.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eelnoraa
Goldmember
1,798 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
     
May 27, 2009 23:27 |  #8

TylerCP wrote in post #8001809 (external link)
If anything you pay for the ability to use that great lens on a full frame or 1.3x crop body if you ever upgrade, or win that lottery. Sure the 17-55 is nice, but if you can't upgrade and use it, its not my cup of tea.

Well, that really depends. IMHO, unless you are planning to go FF in a very near future, say in 6 monthes, otherwise skipping an absolutely great EF-S lens because of an unforeseen future FF upgrade really doenst make any sense to me


5Di, 5Diii, 28, 50, 85, 16-35II, 24-105, 70-200F2.8 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bluemotion
Member
113 posts
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Orlando
     
May 27, 2009 23:33 |  #9

i like your option a... i have a similar setup..

use the 16-35 f2.8L II for my wide setup, landscapes, group photos, etc...
i have a 50 1.2L for my creative portrait stuff, and walk around.. it's on my 5dII 75% of the time.
and i have a 70-200 2.8L IS for anything requiring reach..

i figured the focal range between 35-70 can be had by walking zoom with my 50L and it works perfectly for me... i don't have the need for any other lens right now, other than a macro lens...


Quan
flickr (external link)
5DII | 5DII backup | 16-35mm f2.8L | 50mm f1.2L | 70-200mm f2.8L IS | Macbook Pro
Complete Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yabbie
Senior Member
Avatar
824 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Sydney, Oz
     
May 27, 2009 23:36 |  #10

I have both, and find that they are great lenses. As a walk around, the 24-70 has a better range for me, but there are so many times that I want wiiide, that I end up taking both if it's a landscape day. From your crop perspective, it depends on what focal lengths you use the most - as to which lens of the two to purchase.
You should know that by now with your 17-85mm lens, as it covers almost both ranges of the two you're deciding on.

Check your current pic collection, and if they are more often in the 16-35 or 24-70 range, get the corresponding lens. They are both fantastic lenses, I find it hard to tell the overlapping-range images apart (24-35mm), best to go with the one that has your most used range.


Alice
5DII, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, MP-E 65, 100 macro, Brolga the birding lens, macro twin flash, tripods, filters and a big box
http://www.lyrebird-gallery.smugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeeBoi
Member
149 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Mlilani, Hawaii
     
May 28, 2009 10:01 |  #11

If you like wide I'd look into the Canon 10-22. It's not a good portrait lens, but it's definitely wide. I sometimes find my 24-70 to be a little long on my 50D so the 16-35 might be a good option for you. Like others have said, the 17-55 might also be considered.


5DII
17-40L | 24-70L | 70-200 2.8L IS
24L II | 50L | 85L II
580EX II | Kenko Extension Tubes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hangbot
Senior Member
441 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2007
Location: finally escaped NYC, and back in Hawaii
     
May 28, 2009 10:43 |  #12

On a Crop, I found the 24-70 to be a little long for my liking(I usually shoot city/urban and need to go wide.) I decided to get the 16-35 and it resolved that problem nicely:) While I'd recommend the 16-35, if you're going to take group shots or portraits - you may get some barreling.

Once you go FF, the 24-70 is excellent. It becomes the perfect FL.

Don't overlook the 17-55 though. You can always sell it later, and it's an awesome lens with a great FL, sharp, 2.8, and IS.


5D III : 35/1.4L : 100/2.8L : 16-35/2.8L : 24-70/2.8L : 70-200/2.8L IS : 100-400L IS : Lensbaby 2
Hassie 501C : Carl Zeiss 80/2.8 : Carl Zeiss 280/5.6
Canon FX : FL 50/1.8 and of course, my Holga:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
[Hyuni]
Goldmember
Avatar
1,186 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Dec 2008
Location: CHiCAGO
     
May 28, 2009 11:26 as a reply to  @ Hangbot's post |  #13

toxic wrote in post #8000977 (external link)
Will this be in the next 4 weeks?

Buy a 17-55. At the very least, throw out the 16-35, since you're paying an extra $500 for a gain in absolutely nothing. On top of that, I'll throw another cog in: the 17-55 outresolves the 24-70.

Completely agree.

rklepper wrote in post #8001748 (external link)
Can you please post the photos you have taken with both that demonstrate this? Thanks, but a statement like this if you do not own both and have not shot them side by side does no one any good. Please post away.

You don't need side by side comparisons, the optics on the 17-55 are superb
If anything on a crop body, you get LESS with the 16-35 because you lose length on the long end, and you don't get IS. Plus, the 16-35 is $500 more expensive!
Why anyone would get the 16-35 when they have a crop body is beyond me.

TylerCP wrote in post #8001809 (external link)
If anything you pay for the ability to use that great lens on a full frame or 1.3x crop body if you ever upgrade, or win that lottery. Sure the 17-55 is nice, but if you can't upgrade and use it, its not my cup of tea.

If you ever upgrade, you can sell the 17-55IS, too. Especially if you buy the lens used, you'll be able to sell it for the same you bought it for.
I'm baffled as to why people believe EF-S lenses become dead weight once (or even if) they plan to move to FF.

To the OP... 17-55IS. Buy used; go for it.
Not only will you spend less money and get more, but you're getting the best zoom lens for crop bodies out there!
The 24-70L is not nearly wide enough on cropped bodies.
Don't think of EF-S lenses as a ball and chain that keeps you locked into cropped bodies. I recently made the change from a 40D to 1D MarkII and have no regrets with my Tamron 17-50, which is for 1.6x cropped bodies.


6D Rokinon 14 f/2.8 l EF 35 ƒ1.4L l EF 135 ƒ2.0L l EF 70-200 ƒ2.8L IS II l YN460 l 580EX II l Flick'd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
weedwhackers
Member
Avatar
182 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Brea, CA
     
May 28, 2009 13:26 |  #14

i had a 50d and i loved the 16-35 on it.. way sharper wideopen, great walk around lens for the 50d... i have the brick as well and i don't pull it out as much as i do the 16-35...


gear: 1d Mkiii - 50mm f/1.4 - 300mm f/4 IS - 16-35mm f/2.8 ii

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

3,453 views & 0 likes for this thread
16-35 2.8 II vs 24-70 2.8
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 grannysclutter
797 guests, 167 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.