canon 16 - 35 or 24 - 70

Hey,

Was looking to add a wide angle lens to my collection. Looking to do goofy dog portraits like this one. While I know the 16 - 35 will give me that look, I can't help to wonder about the beloved 24-70 just because it is so universal. What do you guys think?

I would prefer the 16-35 as I generally hate my 24-70 VII because it's boring. So that's my vote.

Cool pic BTW.

Hi, I think you'd be better with the 16-35. I use it quite a lot and don't miss the 24-70 range. Nice picture!

two entirely different lenses. both must-haves for me.

I love the 16-35. I have the 24-105, but find that I almost never use it because I either want wide (16-35) or telephoto (70-200). I don't really use that in between range covered with the 24-70 much at all.

But everyone is different. You really can't go wrong with either the 16-35 or 24-70.

is the f2.8 iii worth it over the f4?

"is the f2.8 iii worth it over the f4?"

depends

boring lens? don't blame the equipment. blame the person behind it.

I'll be honest, I think my 24-70 mk2 is boring because it is too clinical. It's sharp enough to cut your eyes on, the colour is always spot on and af is rapido.
Almost any other lens has, to my eye, unique qualities.
Also, it's not very long and it's not very wide on full frame or aps.

gabe212 wrote in post #18648551
Hey,

Was looking to add a wide angle lens to my collection. Looking to do goofy dog portraits like this one. While I know the 16 - 35 will give me that look, I can't help to wonder about the beloved 24-70 just because it is so universal. What do you guys think?

Hosted photo: posted by gabe212 in
./showthread.php?p=186​48551&i=i173050779
forum: Canon Lenses

Gabe.
It may be which lens to buy first?
Having an Ultra Wide Zoom (16-35) Standard Zoom (24-70) and a Telephoto Zoom (70-200) in your arsenal is the same as many, many others in the industry.
As I fall into that grouping, I feel your pain. As I travel to Europe at least once a year, I carry all three and two Gripped 5D Mark III's as part of my Greek Trilology of the Canon f/4 L IS, the 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/4 L IS........Version 1.......
If I was "Forced at Gunpoint" to only bring two....the 16-35 and the 70-200. Having IS allows me to capture images in the darker Basilica's at slower shutter speeds Hand Held with great results. No tripods allowed.
My heavier fantastic 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II has been staying home to cut down weight.
I did go back and forth between the 24-70 f/2.8 L IS II and the 24-70 f/4 L IS. Since I knew the benefits of having IS on my newly acquired 16-35 f/4 L IS while in Rome now three years ago, I opted for the smaller, lighter IS version for a follow up visit back to Venice and Florence in Febrary of 2016. Arriving back home with a sore shoulder and back, this is when I decided to leave the heavier 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II at home.
Sooooooo
As with my experience I would certainly recommend buying the 16-35 first. Which one? The f/4 L IS. It's that good.

gabe212 wrote in post #18648889
is the f2.8 iii worth it over the f4?

Depends on your useage. Do you need f2.8? If not the f4 is fantastic.

gabe212 wrote in post #18648889
is the f2.8 iii worth it over the f4?

With this you need to ask yourself: which will serve my needs better: IS or f/2.8?

The f/4 is amazing. Just get it.