Is 24mm wide enough for most of you?

I'm saving money for my next lens-purchase. Of all things I shoot, what I like the most is motorsports (all kinds mostly). But I shoot mostly anything else too, so I want some general-purpose lenses and not just long ones. I got the 50 1.4 USM, and the 70-200 2.8 EX. 200mm have proven more than long enough for mostly anything I do, but 50mm have proven not nearly as wide as I need sometimes Therefore I want a lens for shooting candids in depots, and for general nature-photography, and a urban walk-around lens. I got three on my list:

17-40 f4L
16-35 f2.8L
24-70 f2.8L

I really don't fancy f4 aparture, as I shoot quite a bit indoor, and I also have to fight myself through the Norwegian winter each year, where we don't have good light for more than a few small hours each day.

Guess the 24-70 is the one I _really_ want, since I've heard so much good about it. But so have I heard about the others there to :/ The 24-70 is also quite a bit cheaper than the 16-35 at the moment. What I'm concerned about now, is if 24mm is wide enough for most or your shots? What would you rather had if you had to choose:

24-70, 50, 70-200 or..
16-35, 50, 70-200

Unquestionably the 16-35. 24mm is not that wide on a 1.6x crop factor.

My 17-40 f/4 L is my favorite lens. Priced right too.

My 17-40 f/4 L is my favorite lens. Priced right too.

I've got the 17-40 and 50 and 70-200. When using the 17-40 I think that about half of my shots are in the middle somewhere - 24-28mm. The rest were either at 17 or 40. To me, 17mm - even on a 10D - looks weird. Maybe I've seen many 17mm photos which have looked fine but when *I* know I took a scene at 17mm then it looks weird.

I could live with 24mm, but it killed me when my 50 was the widest. And I'd jump at the 24-70 given half an excuse.

So the 24-70 has my vote.


Edit: I think that eventually you'll get a wider lens, though.

I find the 17-40L very useful for paddock work at motorsports events and motorshows. It enables me to get shots of cars whilst standing close enough to discourage people from wandering in front of me.

vvizard,
I use the 16-35 and 24-70 about the same. I have found that they both work great. Just be warned, you will get some distortion at 16mm w/ the 16-35mm. The only real difference is that you get a few more mm of zooming back (8mm) that you wouldn't otherwise. It can be a lot or none to speak of. I shoot a lot of landscape pics and I found the 24-70 was perfect except for a few times when in Scotland. The 16mm at that stage woulda been overkill. I might have to do some pics to illustrate the difference but the soonest that will happen is next week. I have ton of stuff going on at the moment. I'd go for the 24-70 as it is cheaper and more zoom and will match up to the 70-200 you already have. I found the gap that I once had from 35mm-120mm really sucked so I got the 24-70 and now the gap is 70-120mm. My vote is the 24-70 and then if you find it isn't wide enough, get the 16-35 later.

I know, but remember, 80mm have been my "widest" for half a year, and I'm getting along quite nicely, as my shooting usually requires (135mm * 1.6x = 216mm). The 24-70 would be a great "allround" lens for me, as it's widest part could be long enough to be usefull in much of my work actually. 40mm wouldn't :/ But sometimes a really wide angle could be cool too... I'm going mad again I think June is the month where I should expect to get my tax-return, my vacation-money for last year, and my salary as I'm not taking any summer-vacation this year =D So I need a plan for spending those money before they're spent on beer

16-35, 24-70 or Laptop... hard decisions.. Or maybe.. If I sell my 50mm (cheap enough to buy later), I can maybe afford both laptop and 17-40mm.. That would be awsome =D But again.. The choices are driving me maaad

The point about discouraging people to walk in front of you is really great though.. I hate that, yet it happens _ALL_ the time with my 50mm, as to frame a whole car from the side with my 50mm, I have to be like 7-10 metres away or so

The distortition-part is that worse on the 16-35 than on the 17-40? Cause I've only heard good things about the 17-40. Is the 16-35 optically weaker?

And how about the 24-70 against the 16-35 or 17-40? Which one gives the best looking results? Guess I have about just as many reasons to go with either of them, so I can of course let quality decide. I've heard the 24-70 is _STUNNING_ but is it noticeable better than the 17-40 or 16-35?

You must not be used to wide angles, because 17mm on a 10D has the FOV of a 28mm lens full-frame.

Yep, I figure that I'll get used to it. We see the world at the eye's "normal 50mm" - but it's worse because I wear glasses, and the loss of peripheral vision means that it's more like 70mm. Looking at a scene from my "eyesight at 70mm" to looking at the picture of the scene at 17mm is weird.

If I looked at the picture again in 2 or 3 months - enough time to forget the scene as I saw it - then I'd probably be fine.

Definately go for 24-70 f2.8L. The only other lens I have at that end is the Sigma 15-30 which rarely gets a look!

Martin

I love my Sigma 12-24. Not an easy lens at 12mm because the extreme perspectives when the lens isn't aligned and not pointing to the horizon, but I really like the extreme coverage of it even at 1.6x crop (19-38 equivalence).

I don't think it is any worse for the optical wear, so to speak. Remember that about 16mm you start hitting fisheye lenses. I'd say that 17/18ish the distortion is better. I have to find that pic I took in Colchester. I had to go super wide to get the whole castle but paid the price. I am having trouble locating the pic I am talking about. I will have to get back with you. End of the day, either L lens you can't go wrong with.