decide for my crop body: 24L II or 16-35L II

I have a maternity shoot coming up in 2 weeks and I would like to add another lens to my line up. Currently I have 18-55 IS and 50 f/1.8 II. With the 50mm I always have to step back further to get a full body shot and this is when I have to switch to the 18-55. I want something sharper than my 50mm with an acceptable field of depth and the ability to take a full body shot in a tight space. Something that I will use in the long run. I would also like the lens to have weather sealing... I get frustrated with my 18-55mm when it fogs up and every shots are OOF.

24L f/1.4 II
16-35L f/2.8 II
other suggestions?

24L is nice. But so is the sigma 30mm 1.4 on a crop. And it cost like 1200 less.

I would rather do a canon 17-55 2.8 rather than the 16-35l. The 16-35 is meant for as ultra wide for a ff camera. Also consider a tamron 17-50 2.8. With saving all that cash get some flashes and triggers. It'll help tremendously.

There's a lot more logical Lens choices than the 2 you listed. Both of those are $1600+. You can easily get the tamron 17-50, sigma 30mm, 70-200 f/4L, and a flash instead of one of those lenses. And they will produce images just as good as the ones you listed

Whether sealing will not help the front glass from fogging up. I've never had issues with that on any of my lenses. I only have 1 whether sealed lens living in hot and humid Houston.

24L II is amazing on any format

Both are amazing lenses. And both are fairly unsuited to your proposed use. At its longest the zoom might be okay on the crop, but you are running the risk of some unflattering distortion using such wide lenses for portrait work, especially maternity shots.

Do you want the versatility? Or the wider aperture?

This was taken very close with my 450D. I know this is taken at f5.6 but wide open this lens is sharp

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I would think a 24-70 would be more ideal.

gonzogolf wrote in post #11667421
Both are amazing lenses. And both are fairly unsuited to your proposed use. At its longest the zoom might be okay on the crop, but you are running the risk of some unflattering distortion using such wide lenses for portrait work, especially maternity shots.

what would you suggest that i go with?

I agree with booja, on a crop, 17-55 2.8 over the 16-35 2.8. For a prime, Sigma 30 1.4 is amazing for the price. I liked my Tamron 17-50 2.8 as well if you're looking to spend less.

jxs1984 wrote in post #11667515
what would you suggest that i go with?

For portrait work start at 50 or longer. Since you asked about a prime and a zoom I would say the 24-70 for a zoom option, or a 50L, 50 1.4, or on a crop an 85 (L or 1.8). I understand from your first post you want to work closer, but working closer with a wide lens just adds distortion that you dont want.

gonzo's right, for portraits, you generally don't want to shoot so wide as it can cause distortion (unless ofcourse thats what you're going for but for maternity shots, thats unlikely). On a crop, 50 1.4 would probably be my go to portrait lens. If you're running out of space and need to go wider and can't move back, I wouldn't shoot lower than 30.

gonzogolf wrote in post #11667542
For portrait work start at 50 or longer. Since you asked about a prime and a zoom I would say the 24-70 for a zoom option, or a 50L, 50 1.4, or on a crop an 85 (L or 1.8). I understand from your first post you want to work closer, but working closer with a wide lens just adds distortion that you dont want.

its probably not that noticeable on a crop but doesnt the 24-70 @ 24mm have more barrel disortion than the 24L II?

on a full frame camera:
24-70: http://www.photozone.d​e …28-canon2470f28ff?start=1
24L II: http://www.photozone.d​e …4-canon24f14mk2ff?start=​1

jxs1984 wrote in post #11667665
its probably not that noticeable on a crop but doesnt the 24-70 @ 24mm have more barrel disortion than the 24L II?

on a full frame camera:
24-70: http://www.photozone.d​e …28-canon2470f28ff?start=1
24L II: http://www.photozone.d​e …4-canon24f14mk2ff?start=​1

I dont have either of those lenses. But my point was not so much about the specifics of each lens, but the perspective distortion you get from working too close with a wide lens.

gonzogolf wrote in post #11667689
I dont have either of those lenses. But my point was not so much about the specifics of each lens, but the perspective distortion you get from working too close with a wide lens.

thank you. so the better option is to go with a full frame hmm.

jxs1984 wrote in post #11667697
thank you. so the better option is to go with a full frame hmm.

Thats an apples and oranges issue. using a wide lens, regardless of format is a problem. Going with a full frame camera and the same wide lens would be even worse.