canon 16-35l mk2 or 24-70l

help me decide. i'm a newb and was just wondering what you guys would get? btw, i already have the canon 10-22, so i was thinking that the 16-35 wouldn't be as useful as the 24-70. the lens would be for a 7d.

Thanks.

Neither. You want (in order of cost) a Tamron 17-50/2.8, Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC, Canon ef-s 17-55/2.8 IS.

gasrocks wrote in post #9434387
Neither. You want (in order of cost) a Tamron 17-50/2.8, Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC, Canon ef-s 17-55/2.8 IS.

Well, OP already has the 17-22mm range covered, so...it might be OK to get by with a 24-70mm if he/she is willing to switch lenses more often.

Tamron 28-75/2.8

gasrocks wrote in post #9434418
Tamron 28-75/2.8

i haven't read up on any tamron glass. guess, i'll be doing that right about now!

How can any of you answer this question when the OP has not given any details of what they need the lens for. If you have the money and are seriously into landscaping then the 16-35mm will be an excellent choice however as a general purpose walkabout/portrait lens and also pretty decent landscaping lens also then the 24-70 is a proven lens.

I have both. The 24-70 is much better for general purpose walk-around, portraits, and nice wide angle on my full frame. The 16-35 is much wider obviously and is not getting nearly as much use as the 24-70. If you're more into landscapes as opposed to walk-around shooting then the 16-35 will work well for you. For general use the 24-70 is tops in my book. Extremely sharp, fast, and renders beautiful color and contrast.

I would wait for the 24-70 Mk II that is rumored to have IS. It may be a long wait though. A great answer for right now would be the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 if you plan on staying with a crop sensor.

As the OP already has the 10-22, then the 17-55 would be a better match if he stays with a 1.6x body. If there is a chance of going full frame then I would consider the 24-70 since the 17-55 cannot be used on a full frame body. The 24-70 on a 7D would give a range of 38.4 to 112mm.

My 2c


Cheers all

Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

godbolt wrote in post #9438677
How can any of you answer this question when the OP has not given any details of what they need the lens for. If you have the money and are seriously into landscaping then the 16-35mm will be an excellent choice however as a general purpose walkabout/portrait lens and also pretty decent landscaping lens also then the 24-70 is a proven lens.

I was hoping to use the 10-22 for landscapes and different perspective photography. The 24-70l would be for general walkaround/portrait lens. I've been using the canon 50mm f1.4 and the canon 35mm f2 more than the 10-22, as of late.

btw, i forgot to mention that i take a lot of pictures of mtn biking, dirt biking and cycling. so really, i think the 24-70 would be the better choice because it is sealed?

jonahrei wrote in post #9463631
btw, i forgot to mention that i take a lot of pictures of mtn biking, dirt biking and cycling. so really, i think the 24-70 would be the better choice because it is sealed?

FYI: If you camera body is not sealed the lens being sealed makes no diff and you can buy 2 or 4 Tamron lenses forthe price of the Canon
Having a real lens as a backup is far better then a pretend weather sealing that only really helps against a brief sprinkle of water.

gasrocks wrote in post #9434418
Tamron 28-75/2.8

Tamron 28-75/2.8 is the BEST of class, if the canon was $500 it would still be 2nd place as it's double the weight!
The USM does not allow faster focus when comparing these few lenses imho 17-55L and 24-70L vs 17-55 and 28-75 Tamrons.

I sold my 24-70L and 24-105L got $2300 back and spent only $500 on the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and all my images have improved noticeably over the canon L's.
It sounds farfetched at first but using them and seeing the photos made a believer out of me.
Many posts on the forums say similar things.
The only thing you really loose with the Tamron is slight IQ loss at far edges of frame,
but it's so small it's not a reason to wait since you can get it back in PP easily.
Many pro reviews showed the glass in these two Tamron to exceed the Canon L optical quality across 90% of the frame.

I updated my post and wanted the OP top see it in full:

Pheonix1 wrote in post #9463645

jonahrei wrote in post #9463631
btw, i forgot to mention that i take a lot of pictures of mtn biking, dirt biking and cycling. so really, i think the 24-70 would be the better choice because it is sealed?

FYI: If you camera body is not sealed the lens being sealed makes no diff and you can buy 2 or 4 Tamron lenses for the price of the Canon
Having a real lens as a backup is far better then a pretend weather sealing that only really helps against a brief sprinkle of water.

gasrocks wrote in post #9434418
Tamron 28-75/2.8

Tamron 28-75/2.8 is the BEST of class, if the canon was $500 it would still be 2nd place as it's double the weight!
The USM does not allow faster focus when comparing these few lenses imho 17-55L and 24-70L vs 17-55 and 28-75 Tamrons.

I sold my 24-70L and 24-105L got $2300 back and spent only $500 on the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and all my images have improved noticeably over the canon L's.
It sounds farfetched at first but using them and seeing the photos made a believer out of me.
Many posts on the forums say similar things.
The only thing you really loose with the Tamron is slight IQ loss at far edges of frame,
but it's so small it's not a reason to wait since you can get it back in PP easily.
Many pro reviews showed the glass in these two Tamron to exceed the Canon L optical quality across 90% of the frame.

umm a 10-22 on an aps-c camera is a 16-35 (bit slower obviously). So why would you get a lens with the exact same focal length as another? Doesn't make sense to me. If you need to the 2.8 just get the 24-70 then you get the speed plus a different focal length