Lens Debate Canon 16-35 or 24-70 f/2.8

I am debating between the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. Both will be canon, so they will have good build quality, they are both USM, so fast auto-focus, both f/2.8 so they have great glass.

However, my problem is which would be better in specific situations. I shoot a lot of low-light, club concert photos. Generally, I am pretty close, occasionally I won't be so lucky. For that reason, I think the 24-70 should be a good choice, however, the 16-35 is a pretty nice lens too.

Anybody have experience with either lens that may be able to offer some insight?

Only you know which specific situations you will be shooting in, so its really up to you to decide. Do you need a wide range, or do you need range?

I think the 24-70 would be more versatile. You can always back up and zoom in, with the 16-35, you would always have to be pretty close.

That's what I was thinking, the 24-70 does have more range. I wasn't sure if anybody had any concert or related low-light experience with either lens and could give some feedback on the autofocus, or other performance notes/quirks.

Which camera? 16-35 will be too wide if it's FF.

Even on a 1.6 I think you'd be hard pressed with the 16-35 for two reasons, 1 it's too wide for concert photography (or at least the concert images I like) and 2. I don't think f2.8 is really fast enough most of the time in a concert.

At 10 feet I can get a decent full body shot at 35mm on a 20d, so you'll have to chase them around the stage to get those photos you want. Of course wide angles of the whole venue are cool, but most images are going to be specific subjects.

My pick would be the 24-70 at least if not the 85 1.8 and maybe the 135 f2.

Just my 2cents...

I shoot with a 20D, I have the Canon 50 f/1.8 and it is too close sometimes, I am friends with many of the bands I shoot, so I pretty much sit on the stage for some shots, and the 50 is too long.

I'm leaning toward the 24-70 for the range, and 2.8 isn't always fast enough, but it is much better than 3.5+ for many other lenses I have looked at.

The 16-35 is a very fine lens, but I believe the 24-70 to be the better performer, by a fairly noticeable margin. How's it a one or the other decision, though? Very different FL's, eh?

I don't have an unlimited budget, so I have to buy one FL range now, save up to buy another lens, etc. So I am debating which order to purchase my lenses now.

IMO the 24-70 is much more useful, especially if you have to go with one and only one right now.

Thanks for everybody's feedback, I feel more secure in my decision now with other opinions backing mine up.

Also, when you go back to order a WA lens, consider the 17-40. Less than half the cost. Figure if you really need 2.8 at 16mm. I just never ever did, so I switched. They're both fantastic lenses.

Don't believe the hype. Here's the 16-35 in action during a concert. It can be done.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Atheomerase wrote in post #2547296
I am debating between the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 lenses. Both will be canon, so they will have good build quality, they are both USM, so fast auto-focus, both f/2.8 so they have great glass.

However, my problem is which would be better in specific situations. I shoot a lot of low-light, club concert photos. Generally, I am pretty close, occasionally I won't be so lucky. For that reason, I think the 24-70 should be a good choice, however, the 16-35 is a pretty nice lens too.

Anybody have experience with either lens that may be able to offer some insight?

Neither lens would be good for low light club concert photos. You need to get fast primes...these zooms may let you down, as F2.8 is too slow for the type of shooting you wrote of.

As far as those two go, the 24-70L is sharper, and provides better color and contrast, but now I split hairs because the 16-35L is a great lens too.

Steiglitz wrote in post #2548038
Neither lens would be good for low light club concert photos. You need to get fast primes...these zooms may let you down, as F2.8 is too slow for the type of shooting you wrote of.

As far as those two go, the 24-70L is sharper, and provides better color and contrast, but now I split hairs because the 16-35L is a great lens too.

Well that depends greatly on the lighting conditions. I shot a large percentage of that concert using the 50 1.4 and the 16-35L. Most shots with the 16-35 were at max aperture with the ISO bumped to 1600 and the EC set to -2/3. I was getting decent shutter speeds and caught much of the action. You're definitely stretching it with a max aperture of 2.8, but you don't necessarily have to limit yourself by not using it at all.

man, i thought i was sure of what i wanted, then to think about 1.4 primes... would be nice to have, eventually though. I think I'm going to go with the 24-70 and see how it works out. I'm happy with my 70-200 f/2.8 HSM, so I am hoping for just as good, if not better photos with a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 USM.