Canon 16-35 vs. Canon 24-70

i just sold my 17-40 and i am picking up a lens tomorrow, question is....which one?

i initially intended on getting the 16-35, but now the 24-70 has come into play. i will use this lens as my walk around lens/general purpose. i enjoy the wider 16-35 for automotive images. but then i love the zoom capabilities of the 24-70. i shoot with a 5D, does one lens have an advantage coupled with a FF camera?

can you pls chime in on your thoughts between the two lenses - pro's & con's!

Can't speak for the 16-35 but i have 24-70 on 5DII and its great for walkabout and landscape.

You just ain't got an UWA then. I think 24 may not be enough if you want low down auto shots.

Ian

Go through all your previous inages and delete all the ones shot between 17-23mm. Those you would never have been able to take.

PS. Delete, figuratively

I would have added another lens and not have sold the 17-40, unless it was to replace it with the 16-35.

Think of it this way. You had the 17-40. That's closer to the 16-35 in FL than the 24-70. Did you like having that limitation or were you looking for more zoom? You've obviously had a taste of the UWA zoom so if you enjoyed it then it's probably best to go for the 16-35.

I would get the 24-70 and play with that awhile for a change of pace. Then up the road get another wide angle if you find you really miss it. Of course what do I know being a newbie and all? At least I'm logical.

The Moose wrote in post #8137627
Think of it this way. You had the 17-40. That's closer to the 16-35 in FL than the 24-70. Did you like having that limitation or were you looking for more zoom? You've obviously had a taste of the UWA zoom so if you enjoyed it then it's probably best to go for the 16-35.

This is very good advice. do you find FL of 17-40 limiting you? If you find you want to go over 40mm a lot of times, then 24-70L is worth a look.

One negative aspect about the 24-70L is its weight and size. On paper, it is not too much more than 17-40L or 16-35II, but in pratice, it feels much larger and heavier. In my case, its size and weight keeps me from using it more often. so it may be one thing to consider

The 16-35 is a really lovely lens - I find it great on my 5D & 50D. The 24-70 is also a cracker - feels huge (but that isn't an issue personally). 24 is fairly wide on FF, but doesn't give that UWA look like the 16-20mm area does.

THE TROOPER wrote in post #8137214
Can't speak for the 16-35 but i have 24-70 on 5DII and its great for walkabout and landscape.

You just ain't got an UWA then. I think 24 may not be enough if you want low down auto shots.

Ian

do explain UWA, thanks.

bohdank wrote in post #8137566
Go through all your previous inages and delete all the ones shot between 17-23mm. Those you would never have been able to take.

PS. Delete, figuratively

I would have added another lens and not have sold the 17-40, unless it was to replace it with the 16-35.

after "figuratively deleting" shots between 17-23mm, i found that there weren't too many. and the few, i could get shooting it at 24mm. great advice!

The Moose wrote in post #8137627
Think of it this way. You had the 17-40. That's closer to the 16-35 in FL than the 24-70. Did you like having that limitation or were you looking for more zoom? You've obviously had a taste of the UWA zoom so if you enjoyed it then it's probably best to go for the 16-35.

i'd prefer a bit of a zoom, yes. i'm still at a loss on UWA, sorry. what are the differences with having it and not in the 24-70?

eelnoraa wrote in post #8139115
This is very good advice. do you find FL of 17-40 limiting you? If you find you want to go over 40mm a lot of times, then 24-70L is worth a look.

One negative aspect about the 24-70L is its weight and size. On paper, it is not too much more than 17-40L or 16-35II, but in pratice, it feels much larger and heavier. In my case, its size and weight keeps me from using it more often. so it may be one thing to consider

i hand hold the 70-200 2.8, so weight is not a problem.

philthejuggler wrote in post #8139925
The 16-35 is a really lovely lens - I find it great on my 5D & 50D. The 24-70 is also a cracker - feels huge (but that isn't an issue personally). 24 is fairly wide on FF, but doesn't give that UWA look like the 16-20mm area does.

UWA?

UWA = Ultra Wide Angle

bohdank wrote in post #8139965
UWA = Ultra Wide Angle

lmao..i should've known that!

yes, i do like the UWA but not so much when the edges would get distorted.

i just orderred the 24-70 and will be picking it up tomorrow!! hope i made the right choice.

Distorted. If you mean stretched horizontally, then there is nothing you can do about that, other than don't have anything that would be noticeable close to the edges.

If you mean barrel/pincusion, then buy the Canon 10-22.

If you mean tilting verticals, then don't angle the lens vertically, relative to the verticals you are shooting (don't point up when shooting buildings, for example)

16-35mm its much lighter.. and still a great walk around lens

When you put that 24-70 on that 5D, you may never take it off. At least for a while.

I have both and think you made the right choice, for me the 16-35 is just not long enough for a walkaround lens even on my 1.3 crop bodies.

weedwhackers wrote in post #8140129
16-35mm its much lighter.. and still a great walk around lens

weight is not an issue. i frequently hand hold my 70-200 2.8.

Space wrote in post #8140460
When you put that 24-70 on that 5D, you may never take it off. At least for a while.

that's what i want to hear!!lol

i can't wait, i'm picking her up tomorrow on my way to a shoot!

malla1962 wrote in post #8140496
I have both and think you made the right choice, for me the 16-35 is just not long enough for a walkaround lens even on my 1.3 crop bodies.

i'm just hoping the 24mm is wide enough when i shoot cars.