Pulling my hair out this morning...

I have a lot of fun with my UWA 16-35LII...but I am struggling a little with the usefulness of its range given the conditions I often find myself.

I need to add a mid-range zoom...

So I am debating between either adding a Tamron 28-75 to my current mix OR selling/trading the 16-35 for a 24-70L. Either lens would join my Canon 85/1.8. A 135L will fall into the mix at some point.

Grrr...I guess I would be entering the "sharpness lottery" in either the case of the 24-70L or 28-75. How much did I miss 16-23 when I shot with my 24-105? A lot!

I think I am leaning towards the 28-75 now and see how much I prefer using that range over the 16-35. If I do, then I suppose I could sell them both for a 24-70L+cash towards a 135L.

The 24-105L is not an option. Already owned a sharp copy and sold it. Didn't have much fun with it.


Decisions!

24-70L. 24mm on a full frame is wide enough.

TooManyShots wrote in post #12503561
24-70L. 24mm on a full frame is wide enough.

24mm on full frame is not even near wide enough.

Recently, I was having fun on a boat cruise with a 24-70 2.8L, while the event photographer was having fun with my 70-200 f/4 IS. I think he was having more fun than I was, what with every time he asked to borrow that lens!

It did give me the opportunity to get some shots I wouldn't otherwise, but looking at the files on my computer you can definitely start to see some differences. The corners leave a lot to be desired on the 24-70, especially at 24mm, even at f/5 vignetting and CA is visible to me.

Not really fair comparing these two lenses, though if I really had to get a zoom to cover the wide end, it'd be the 24-70, but I never had the need for a mid-zoom, so I would use primes instead...

TooManyShots wrote in post #12503561
24-70L. 24mm on a full frame is wide enough.

Well that simplifies things for everybody

While a rather costly alternative once i added the outstanding Zeiss 21/f2.8 ZE which is IMO plenty wide enough on my 5D MKII i added the Sigma 50/f1.4 and already had the stellar 70-200 MKII.

The below on the 5D MKII are the only 3 lenses i really need:

Zeiss 21/f2.8 ze
Sigma 50/f1.4
Canon 70-200 MKII

But thats just me !

Regards,

For me, a little more info would help make a better recommendation. How often do you find yourself in a situation where you need to be wider than 24mm? Also, what didn't you like about the 24-105L?

24-70 is the way to go.

24mm on a FF is pretty wide and if that's the widest you need to go, then it's a no-brainer.
If not, then keep the 16-35. Pretty simple...

The 16-35 is a little wide on the ff camera and is more of a specialty type lens. The 24-70 is an awesome lens on the ff camera. It has good range and works for somewhat wide shots and some closeups as well.

rick_reno wrote in post #12503885
24-70 is the way to go.

Nothing is wrong with the Tammy 28-75,either.

I have the Tamron 28-75 and i love it because is sharp, compact, light and gets the job done, but in your shoes I'd trade that lens for a 27-70 2.8
there is a difference between 24mm and 28mm, I miss that 24mm some times, not a deal breaker for me but would love to have a 24-70 in my arcenal
24mm is not the widest but wide enough for many circumstances

16-35 is a wonderful lens on 5DII... if it's the lens that fits your needs.

24-70 is a tremendous lens, too... if it meets your needs.

There is no such thing as "wide enough" or "no where near wide enough"... It comes down to personal requirements and what you are trying to do with your camera. We all have different wishes and needs.

Personally I use 24-70/2.8 and sometimes I use 20/2.8 Canon when I want wider. That works for me... It might or might not work for you.

I have no desire for the Tamron... It might be fine... It's virtually the same range as the 24-70, so I think it would come down to build quality, AF performance, price, and similar factors, which might be the best choice.

For me, the 135L was an absolutely essential lens as soon as I got the 5DII. I shot with crop cameras for years without it... But bought it the same week as my FF camera.

dalto wrote in post #12503825
For me, a little more info would help make a better recommendation. How often do you find yourself in a situation where you need to be wider than 24mm? Also, what didn't you like about the 24-105L?

Well, here are the focal lengths I've used after one year of using the 5DII. I use 16mm quite a bit. I got rid of the 24-105 because I just didn't have fun with it. It was a great copy, but I found it boring? I also prefer faster glass.

I dunno. Look at these FLs, I should keep the 16-35 and think about adding a 35L and 135L. The latter will come on board at some point anyway.

From the chart, it seems that these primes would work great for you.

14mm
24mm
35mm
85mm

In fact, this would be similar to the setup I'd use if I was to go 3 primes.