Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 31 Mar 2008 (Monday) 05:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

24-70L vs 16-35L vs 35L

 
buckwheat
Member
Avatar
229 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Canada
     
Mar 31, 2008 21:02 |  #16

I have all 3 (not bragging). The first one I got was the 24-70L and you would have to pry it from my "cold dead hands" before I would sell it. It is the best overall focal length, very fast and built like a tank! The others are very, very nice...but if I only had one...24-70 never disappoints. don't worry about bad copies...just get a good one! Good luck.


5D/35L/50 1.4/85 1.8/100 Macro/ 16-35L/24-70L/24-105L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yabbie
Senior Member
Avatar
824 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Sydney, Oz
     
Mar 31, 2008 21:32 as a reply to  @ buckwheat's post |  #17

I have all three, the 16-35 is fairly new to me, but I have (and am selling when I get around to it) a 17-40 as well.

The 35L wows the others for that length, plus is great for bokeo, portrait shots and low light.

The 24-70 for me is my travelling lens, when there's no time or impractical to change primes, and it does a great job. Just not as sharp or quite as speccy as the 35L

The 16-35 I'm loving for that wide (well for a 400D) range, but the 35 still blows it away in that length. The IQ of the 16-35 is such that I don't have a hankering for a super wide prime any more, this zoom does a very good job of all that and is more versitile in length range. The IQ of this zoom for me looks heaps better than the 17-40, so I'm very happy.

I wouldn't not get a lens of fantastic IQ and other abilities just because of lack of weather sealing, there are work-arounds! Being the 35L that is..

If you're in a location where you can get cheap rentals, do that! I wish I had that option.

It just depends on your use - if the length isn't right, you won't use it no matter how good the IQ is.

Here are some examples:
http://lyrebird-gallery.smugmug.com …y/4623689_kDoWx​#272825656 (external link)
most landscapes were taken with the 16-35 (check using the i button) - the dark winery shots with the 35L

http://lyrebird-gallery.smugmug.com …y/4453011_G5hXf​#262487842 (external link)
all of these were with the 35L

http://lyrebird-gallery.smugmug.com …y/3336267_xSZGH​#186207500 (external link)
most (except 135mm) were taken with the 24-70

I can ramp up the sizes temporarily if you want to see larger than medium.


Alice
5DII, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, MP-E 65, 100 macro, Brolga the birding lens, macro twin flash, tripods, filters and a big box
http://www.lyrebird-gallery.smugmug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agphotography
Goldmember
Avatar
3,726 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Mar 31, 2008 23:37 |  #18

I also have all 3 lenses and use each regularly.

If i were to play favorites. I will never. EVER sell my 35L. The lens is magical. If you are going to use that FL the most it really is unbeatable Image quality-wise. I find the 24-70 to be a very very useful range of FLs as well, and It is regularly used on my mkII. However, anytime I need a wider angle I always use the 16-35L.

Each one has its benefits and drawbacks and you can't go wrong either way.


-Abram-
www.goglanianphoto.com (external link)
500px (external link) / Flickr (external link)
Tumblr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheHoff
Don't Hassle....
Avatar
8,804 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Mar 31, 2008 23:46 |  #19

I think the question though is if you plan to get more lenses in the future, get the most flexible one first. I say go for the 16-35 and add the primes as you can; that is what I'm doing. It gives you the most range up front.


••Vancouver Wedding Photographer  (external link)••| [gear list] | Latest blog: 5 steps to stopping image loss (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Perry ­ Ge
Batteries? We don't need no...   . . . or cards.
Avatar
12,266 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 298
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Apr 01, 2008 01:38 |  #20

35L - 2 stops of speed goes a long way. If you're worried it's not wide enough, 24L.

Fast prime vs slower zoom, is there really any contest?


Perry | www.perryge.com (external link) | flickr (external link) | C&C always welcome | Market Feedback & Gear | Sharpening sticky | Perspective sticky

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheHoff
Don't Hassle....
Avatar
8,804 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 01, 2008 02:08 |  #21

But look where he is shooting... he said primarily outdoors in the snow. The 16 zoom is weathersealed and I think 2.8 should be fast enough. He can do more things with the zoom, simply put you get 16mm, and then add the primes later as needed.


••Vancouver Wedding Photographer  (external link)••| [gear list] | Latest blog: 5 steps to stopping image loss (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Perry ­ Ge
Batteries? We don't need no...   . . . or cards.
Avatar
12,266 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 298
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Hong Kong
     
Apr 01, 2008 02:12 |  #22

TheHoff wrote in post #5235766 (external link)
But look where he is shooting... he said primarily outdoors in the snow. The 16 zoom is weathersealed and I think 2.8 should be fast enough. He can do more things with the zoom, simply put you get 16mm, and then add the primes later as needed.

Good point, but he also mentioned that natural light up there isn't so good. I reckon the extra speed would help, but what you say makes a lot of sense. The ultra-wide end is certainly the only focal length range where I like having a zoom and find it useful, and your suggestion is a good one.

The fast prime gut reaction certainly kicked in a little with that post :lol:.


Perry | www.perryge.com (external link) | flickr (external link) | C&C always welcome | Market Feedback & Gear | Sharpening sticky | Perspective sticky

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Davidoff
Senior Member
Avatar
600 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: Portugal
     
Apr 01, 2008 05:32 |  #23

Even if the range of the 35 is what he wants, does he really want to shoot action at f/1.4 or f/2 ? I also think the zoom would be better.


My website (external link)
My Facebook (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
afb
Member
86 posts
Joined Mar 2006
     
Apr 01, 2008 08:26 |  #24

yea...snow is gonna be pretty bright anyways. but i love me some 35/1.4

IMAGE: http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2776/img1151ib5.jpg

http://www.andrewhkim.​comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arild8515
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
134 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Apr 01, 2008 08:41 as a reply to  @ Davidoff's post |  #25

Thanks all. Going into the thinking box on this one. 16-35 does look like it´s in the lead, and the prime could always be picked up later (mk2?? CANON!!). Not ruling out the 24-70 quite yet though.

Again, thanks for all your suggestions, help and answers.


Leica M9, Summicron 28
20D, 18-55IS
1DsII, 1DII, Tamron 90 Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agphotography
Goldmember
Avatar
3,726 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Apr 01, 2008 11:00 |  #26

Like I said before, they are all amazing lenses, and each one is capable of incredible results if used properly.

Look at it this way. It's a win-win situation for you, no matter which one you choose, you're getting an awesome lens. :)


-Abram-
www.goglanianphoto.com (external link)
500px (external link) / Flickr (external link)
Tumblr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,395 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 578
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Apr 01, 2008 11:07 |  #27

arild8515 wrote in post #5237105 (external link)
Thanks all. Going into the thinking box on this one. 16-35 does look like it´s in the lead, and the prime could always be picked up later (mk2?? CANON!!). Not ruling out the 24-70 quite yet though.

Again, thanks for all your suggestions, help and answers.

if you are likely to acquire all these lenses at some point it sure would seem counterintuitve to me to start with the prime.

i've owned the 35 1.4 and there's no way i would take it over the 24-70L....if i could choose just one. nor would i take the prime over my 17-40L :D.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4 x2, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, 14L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 28 f1.4 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JAcosta
Goldmember
Avatar
1,522 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Korea
     
Apr 01, 2008 12:18 |  #28

Go the route of primes. It'll make you a better man.


Like any of the photos Ive posted?flickr flickr flickr (external link)
^^^Click Here^^^
Chances are you'll see something else you like!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheHoff
Don't Hassle....
Avatar
8,804 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Apr 01, 2008 12:46 |  #29

JAcosta wrote in post #5238370 (external link)
Go the route of primes. It'll make you a better man.

Primes: Swingin' low with more hair on your chest.


••Vancouver Wedding Photographer  (external link)••| [gear list] | Latest blog: 5 steps to stopping image loss (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arild8515
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
134 posts
Joined Jan 2008
     
Apr 01, 2008 14:01 |  #30

TheHoff wrote in post #5238507 (external link)
Primes: Swingin' low with more hair on your chest.

You don´t want to see my chest, mang. :D

I do like primes, and have experience using these fixed thingies, but buying glass is unfortunately all about compromise.

Tell you what - I´ll get the 24-70, and after returning two or three of them, I´ll post some results. This time next year, I´ll be contemplating getting that 35.

Thanks POTNers.


Leica M9, Summicron 28
20D, 18-55IS
1DsII, 1DII, Tamron 90 Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

3,312 views & 0 likes for this thread, 16 members have posted to it.
24-70L vs 16-35L vs 35L
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ANebinger
1230 guests, 167 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.