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 29 Mar 2011 (Tuesday) 21:27
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 for 7D

 
ifi
Member
173 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Texas
     
Mar 29, 2011 21:27 |  #1

Hi,

I have a Canon EF 70-200 f2.8L IS II and am thinking of getting my 2nd L lens. Between 16-35 2.8 II and 24-70?, what would be a better choice for 7D?

Thanks :)


:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
john_galt
Senior Member
576 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2011
     
Mar 29, 2011 21:59 |  #2

have you considered 17-55mm 2.8? im sure others will rec it. its a great lens though not L build. if you are set on the two you listed, id say 24-70mm but depends on what you plan to shoot i guess


Gear: 5d iii, 17-40mm l, 24-70mm ii, 35mm 1.4 l, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 135mm l, 70-200mm ii l, 600ex-rt

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ifi
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
173 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Texas
     
Mar 29, 2011 22:04 |  #3

I have read very good reviews on 17-55 2.8. But I am planning to get a full frame camera, as soon as it is available in stock on a reasonable price.


:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
XxDJCyberLoverxX
Goldmember
Avatar
1,139 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 144
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
     
Mar 29, 2011 22:08 |  #4

Does it have to be between those two, or does it have to be an L lens? Like what john_galt said, it really depends on what you shoot.

The 16-35 is really meant to be an ultra-wide angle lens, but with your 7D you're not really taking full advantage of what it has to offer; instead the 16-35 almost falls into the standard zoom range where a lot of other really good (and less expensive) alternatives are: Tamron's and Sigma's 17-50, Canon's own 17-55mm. You're really just losing 1mm if you go with the alternatives vs the 16-35mm, but you gain so much more on the long end.

You should be able to better take advantage of what the 24-70mm has to offer since it falls right into its standard zoom range category, so I would recommend the 24-70 IF it has to be between these two lenses.

Otherwise, for the price of either one of them, I'd get a Canon 17-55/ Sigma 17-50mm OS and an ultra-wide zoom if you really want one.


Daniel
Sony a7 / Sony a7s / FE 24-70mm / FE 28mm F/2 / Samyang 135mm
Nebula 4000 Lite / Manfrotto 190cx
POTN Feedback / My Work! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
XxDJCyberLoverxX
Goldmember
Avatar
1,139 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 144
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
     
Mar 29, 2011 22:09 |  #5

^^^ Well, my mistake. I guess as I was typing my reply you already replied to john_galt.

Well if you do plan on gong full frame soon, then it all depends on what you like to shoot.


Daniel
Sony a7 / Sony a7s / FE 24-70mm / FE 28mm F/2 / Samyang 135mm
Nebula 4000 Lite / Manfrotto 190cx
POTN Feedback / My Work! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ifi
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
173 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Texas
     
Mar 29, 2011 22:16 |  #6

I am into nature photography and yes it has to be an L lens.


:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Velorium
Senior Member
493 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2010
     
Mar 29, 2011 22:33 |  #7

24-70mm as a swiss army knife, 16-35mm if you want as-wide-as-you-can-get-with-a-L-zoom landscape shots. At the same time, you could get the 24-70mm now and get a wide prime later such as the 14L. This is with full frame in mind and the assumption that since "it has to be an L lens" that you won't stray to 3rd party such as a Ziess.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ifi
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
173 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Texas
     
Mar 29, 2011 22:44 |  #8

Thank you guys.


:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
irishman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,098 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
     
Mar 29, 2011 22:53 |  #9

Rule #1--Buy equipment for the camera you have now. You won't get hurt selling it.
That said, the 24-70 is a more versatile lens, the 16-35 more of a landscape lens. Have you considered the 24-105? Its awesome.


6D, G9, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 15mm Fisheye, Sigma 50 2.8 macro, Nikon 14-24G 2.8, Canon 16-35 2.8 II, Canon 24-105 f/4 IS, Canon 70-200 2.8 IS, tripod, lights, other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
faz077
Member
55 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Penrith, Australia
     
Mar 29, 2011 22:56 |  #10

I've got a 50D at the moment on my way to a Mark IV. I have the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS II, just need to get the 16-35 2.8 and then eventually a 400 2.8 all being used for sports.

If you were to get one now I would go the 24-70. If you get the 16-35 you've got that gap between it and the 70-200 that you can't cover at the moment regardless if it is a crop or full frame.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Buff_GUY
Senior Member
573 posts
Joined May 2010
     
Mar 29, 2011 23:03 |  #11

I would make a game plan on what lens line up you want! If I was in your predicament, I would go for the 24-70, to match up with the 70-200.


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silverant
Senior Member
Avatar
375 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Indonesia
     
Mar 29, 2011 23:07 |  #12

ifi wrote in post #12121265 (external link)
I am into nature photography and yes it has to be an L lens.

No one mention 17-40 L?

Since he is a nature photographer, I think he doesn't need 2.8 and color from 17-40 is one of the best. it's a L, wide enough, a lot cheaper, and weather sealing too :)

IMHO.


5D II | 550D | 24-70 2.8 | 70-200 4 IS | 50 1.8 | 100 2.8 IS | 580 ex II
sold : 450d | 17-40 | 17-55 2.8 | 24-105 | 85 1.8 | 70-200 4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Velorium
Senior Member
493 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2010
     
Mar 29, 2011 23:10 |  #13

silverant wrote in post #12121539 (external link)
No one mention 17-40 L?

Since he is a nature photographer, I think he doesn't need 2.8 and color from 17-40 is one of the best. it's a L, wide enough, a lot cheaper, and weather sealing too :)

IMHO.

Good points.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ifi
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
173 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Texas
     
Mar 30, 2011 00:17 |  #14

I will test 24-70, 16-35 ii and 17-40 in the store. I've a feeling that I will fall for 17-40 or 16-35 :)


:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrew_WOT
Goldmember
1,418 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: CA
     
Mar 30, 2011 11:05 |  #15

If you do portraits - 24-70 hands down, for landscaping - 17-40. 16-35 II might not buy you much IQ wise but you'd have to deal with its unconventional 82mm filter thread size.




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

6,944 views & 0 likes for this thread
16-35 2.8 II vs 24-70 for 7D
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 mostafavifarzaneh
917 guests, 335 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.