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

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.

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
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
all of these were with the 35L

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

TheHoff wrote in post #5235766
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 .

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.

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

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.

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.

arild8515 wrote in post #5237105
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 .

ed rader

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

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

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

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

You don´t want to see my chest, mang.

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.