What to do with my 16-35 2.8L II - Moving from APS-H to FF

Trying to decide if there may be a better lens on FF than my 16-35 2.8L II that I use on my 1D3. For filming, I know the 24-105L IS would be beneficial because of the IS; but can anyone suggest anything else? Thinking of perhaps renting the 24-105L IS rather than buying for an overseas 'filming doc' trip. Is there another IS lens that may be a good alternative on a 6D?

I do love being able to get the really wide shots; but it's really only getting about 21mm on FF standards.

What would I be looking at (extra $) to trade my 16-35L II for a 24-70L II if I went that route?

javapop wrote in post #16831407
Trying to decide if there may be a better lens on FF than my 16-35 2.8L II that I use on my 1D3. For filming, I know the 24-105L IS would be beneficial because of the IS; but can anyone suggest anything else? Thinking of perhaps renting the 24-105L IS rather than buying for an overseas 'filming doc' trip. Is there another IS lens that may be a good alternative on a 6D?

I do love being able to get the really wide shots; but it's really only getting about 21mm on FF standards.

What would I be looking at (extra $) to trade my 16-35L II for a 24-70L II if I went that route?

I don't understand why you would want get rid rid of your 16-35mm. You're going from 1.3 crop to full frame and you'll get even better and wider results since on the APS-H you were getting a 35mm equivalent angle of view of 21- 46mm. That lens on FF will be MUCH wider, which is what you say you want. And then you talk about getting a 24-105 or a 24-70 to replace it which will give you results that will be narrower on FF then your 16-35 was on your 1.3 crop. I'm confused.

As MWSILVER said. The 16-35 2.8L II is an EF lens the same as the 24-70L II, so it's field
of view will be much wider on a Full Frame Camera, and will be wider than the 24-70L II
can do (16mm VS 24mm). As for Zooms with IS, I don't know of any wider than the
24-105 4.0L IS that work on Full Frame.

--Evan

javapop wrote in post #16831407
Trying to decide if there may be a better lens on FF than my 16-35 2.8L II that I use on my 1D3. For filming, I know the 24-105L IS would be beneficial because of the IS; but can anyone suggest anything else? Thinking of perhaps renting the 24-105L IS rather than buying for an overseas 'filming doc' trip. Is there another IS lens that may be a good alternative on a 6D?

I do love being able to get the really wide shots; but it's really only getting about 21mm on FF standards.

What would I be looking at (extra $) to trade my 16-35L II for a 24-70L II if I went that route?

For video, as long as you aren't mounted on a dolly, the 24-105 is really the way to go due to the image stabilization, as long as you are restricting yourself to zooms. If you are open to primes, then the image stabilized primes in the wide angle spectrum are good options, yet their image stabilization is largely useless for still photography.

I wouldn't trade a 16-35 for any of that though if you are using a crop sensor. I personally think your 16-35 is a great lens for video on a crop sensor.

mwsilver wrote in post #16831596
I don't understand why you would want get rid rid of your 16-35mm. You're going from 1.3 crop to full frame and you'll get even better and wider results since on the APS-H you were getting a 35mm equivalent angle of view of 21- 46mm. That lens on FF will be MUCH wider, which is what you say you want. And then you talk about getting a 24-105 or a 24-70 to replace it which will give you results that will be narrower on FF then your 16-35 was on your 1.3 crop. I'm confused.

Thanks, very good point. I will most likely keep it, and rent the other lens. I'm restricted on how much I have to work with, thats all.

catclaw wrote in post #16831770
For video, as long as you aren't mounted on a dolly, the 24-105 is really the way to go due to the image stabilization, as long as you are restricting yourself to zooms. If you are open to primes, then the image stabilized primes in the wide angle spectrum are good options, yet their image stabilization is largely useless for still photography.

I wouldn't trade a 16-35 for any of that though if you are using a crop sensor. I personally think your 16-35 is a great lens for video on a crop sensor.

Thanks, looks like a rental for the 24-105 for the trip! I appreciate it!

If I were you, I would keep the 16-35 and replace the 24-105 with a 50/1.4...by doing that I will for a very hand, lightweight, fast lens out of the arsenal...the reasons of selling the 24-105 are : 24-70 is a better lens in term of quality, 24-70 has marco function, 24-70 is more versatile and less bulky...and to cover the distant range, I would buy either a 70-200/4 or 135/2 (my preference)...

borismach wrote in post #16832527
If I were you, I would keep the 16-35 and replace the 24-105 with a 50/1.4...by doing that I will for a very hand, lightweight, fast lens out of the arsenal...the reasons of selling the 24-105 are : 24-70 is a better lens in term of quality, 24-70 has marco function, 24-70 is more versatile and less bulky...and to cover the distant range, I would buy either a 70-200/4 or 135/2 (my preference)...

Thank you, I do have a 70-200 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 I am bringing... I don't have a 24-105. I mainly was thinking of that one for the filming.

I'd be concerned with focus drift on the 24-105. There's a good reason filmmakers tend to use fixed focal length lenses. But there are times when having the ability to zoom is very worthwhile.

I agree with the comments to keep the 16-35 and get the 24-70. In my opinion, you should spend your money on building a set of top quality lenses you can use indefinitely for the widest range of lighting, subjects and situations. These two with your 70-200 and you have 99% of all situations covered. Camera bodies come and go but lenses rarely change except to get even better and there is always a market should you decide to sell one and upgrade. The 24-105 is a nice lens but I ran into more than one situation where I needed something faster and sharper so it eventually was replaced.