16-35 or 24-70

[crosbyharbison]

I need a zoom lens with a f/2.8 to complement a 50mm f/1.4 and a 70-200 2.8 IS. I am using a 1.6 crop body (40d) but have plans to get a FF after I have the lenses covered.


If you can think of whats inside a yearbook; I shoot everything in there (group shots, portraits, sports, etc). It doesn't rain much here so weather sealing is not vital but would be nice for travel.


I have narrowed the field down to:


Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L USM


or


Canon 16-35 F/2.8 L II USM


Does anyone have suggestions? Bonus if you own/have used both.

[WAFKT]

I'd definately go with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM over the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II - especially in light of currently having a crop frame. The EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM will be a very nice wide angle lense when you move up to a full frame - but on a crop frame it's a bit narrow - I'd hold off on that one until you purchase your full frame (in any case you're likely going to want something to fill in the 35-70mm range anyway, so you won't be disappointed with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM). I just purchased the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM (for use with 50D) - if you don't absolutely need the 2.8 aperture then another lens you should look at is the the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM (check out the review on this site) - it's a little smaller and lighter than the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM making it a great walk-around lens, and it reaches past 100mm which is nice when you need it, without having to switch to the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM. It happens to be the kit lens for the 5D Mark II - so if you're planning to go full frame you can save a bit by getting them together in a kit. If you need good wide angle coverage on a crop frame then I'd recommend the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - the downside of course is that the lens can't be used on a full frame.

[Daniel Browning]

Between those two I would suggest the 16-35. On your 40D, the 24mm is not very wide: it's close to a "normal" angle of view. Can you really live without ever shooting wide or ultra wide? I couldn't. You have a 50mm, which is a nice short tele on your 40D, and I personally wouldn't miss the gap between 35mm and 50mm.


That said, I would strongly urge you to reconsider your "full frame only" restriction. I think it only makes sense if you are diametrically opposed to selling any lenses (even at a loss of only around 20%), you're certain that you cannot keep a 1.6X body after you upgrade, and you don't mind paying over twice as much for lower image quality in the mean time.


I also suggest reading this thread for information about why you might want to *stay* with 1.6X:


Advantages of full frame? ("/forums/t/1118.aspx)

[Keith B]

<div>


I own the 16-35 II, the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 50 1.4. So I recommend the 16-35. I almost never find myself shooting between 35 and 70. If I do I prefer to sneaker zoom in or out with one of the other lenses or the 50.


Before I had the 16-35 and the 70-200 I used my 24-105, but that lens doesn't see much time on the camera anymore. I always found 24 just wasn't wide enough and the place where I found it most useful was over 70mm.
</div>

[Benjamin]

I think the 16-35/2.8L II is the way to go too.I own both the 16-35/2.8L II and 24-70/2.8L, but now I think one of my not exactly necessary investments so far is the 24-70/2.8L - especially if you have the 50/1.4 lens. Between where the 16-35 leaves off and where the 70-200 picks up, all you need really is just a 50/1.4. That sometime may mean more frequent lens changes but considering what it does, it's all the same. Once you upgraded to full frame, a 16mm lens will be a lot more staggering than 24mm at the wide side. Daniel is corrent, on a 1.6x body the 24mm may not be wide enough.


But altimately, I think it will depend on what you shoot the most. If what I do is just portrait with one lens, I'll pick up the 24-70 with my 50D and be happy, but for everything else, I'll use my 16-35.

[crosbyharbison]

Thanks for the input. It sounds like the 16-35 is the way to go. Hopefully I will be able to pick it up before the canon rebate programe ends.


It might be noteworthy to know that I do have a 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 and find that it not wide enough for large group shots and is not fast enough. Needless to say its not on my camera very often.

[Alan]

This may be off topic, but since Daniel put that link in there about full frame vs 1.6 crop.


Daniel, I looked at Bryan's comparison of the 200 f/2 lens, between the 50D and the 5DMk2, and the chart is noticably clearer with the 5DMk2.


http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&amp;Camera=479&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLI=0&amp;API= 3&amp;LensComp=458&amp;CameraComp=474&amp;SampleComp=0&amp;FLIComp =0&amp;APIComp=3


I did go through the thread you linked to, but it's too much information to digest for this late in the evening....[:D]

[Daniel Browning]

Daniel, I looked at Bryan's comparison of the 200 f/2 lens, between the 50D and the 5DMk2, and the chart is noticably clearer with the 5DMk2.


The ISO 12233 charts are not intended to be compared accross different sensor sizes. Full frame lenses on full frame cameras generally have higher contrast than full frame lenses on crop cameras enlarged to the same display size. This is because the MTF is being sampled at a higher spatial frequency with the 1.6X crop cameras. For shooters whose needs can be met by inexpensive EF-S glass, the difference is much smaller and often not enough to offset the difference in price of the body and glass together, perhaps depending on how frequently the body is upgraded. I think I explained as much in the linked thread.


Kind regards,

[SupraSonic]

Honest opinion i would go 100% 24-70 F2.8 L ... eventhough if you go FF it is wide..

[Colin]

With a crop body, the 16-35 is, for me, a useable walk-around lens for general purpose pictures. Wide to pretty normal. If I was going to upgrade to full frame later, when I did, I would pick up a 24-70 or 24-105 at the same time, because 16-35mm is entirely wide angle on a full frame camera, and unless i'm doing landscapes or other applications where I want the wide angle perspective, and can get close enough to subjects to actually put a bunch of them in the picture, I can't really see having it as my standard lens of choice. I've got a 16-35mm and a 24-105mm, and the 16-35mm gets use far less than the 24-105mm.


If you like wide shots on the whole, then you might get by sticking with a 16-35mm on a full frame, but if that was the case, you wouldn't even consider a 24-70 on a 1.6x body.

[Jeff]

I have both the 16-35 and 24-70. My 1D3 sees the 16-35 more whereas my 5D2 sees the 24-70. If I need superwide, I will put the 16-35 on my 5D2, and it can almost see around corners :)


Both are great lenses, so depending on what situations you find yourself facing routinely depends on which works best for you.

[Fred Doane]

I don't have either of the mentioned lensese but what I learned about any of the Canon L series is you'll love either one but you'll always wonder what it was like if you had went with the other one. I bought the 24-105 L and LOVE it but I still wonder to this day what is was like to have the 24-70 L instead with the extra f-stop.


Fred~

[ShutterbugJohan]

Thanks for the input. It sounds like the 16-35 is the way to go. Hopefully I will be able to pick it up before the canon rebate programe ends.


It might be noteworthy to know that I do have a 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 and find that it not wide enough for large group shots and is not fast enough. Needless to say its not on my camera very often.





I own the 16-35/2.8L version 1 and the 28-135 IS. I would suggest buying a used or refurbished 16-35/2.8L version 1. The main advantage of the new 16-35/2.8L II is in the full-frame corners; the 16-35/2.8 version 1 also takes 77mm filters, which are cheaper and can be shared with your 70-200/2.8 IS. The 16-35/2.8L is going for about $850 used.

[crosbyharbison]

Johan, that makes a whole lot of sense. If I can find one in good condition, I will consider it.

[germinal]

I'm in exactly the position as you are.. to me 24mm at the wide end is really limiting. My first lens ever was a 28-135 and well.. it's only good for FF.





The problem with the 16-35 secondhand version 1 I see is that when you get a FF it becomes UW and maybe won't use it at much anymore whereas the perfect lens would be a 24-70... then again. If you get a 16-35 at a good price now you probably won't lose that much money.


have you considered the 17-40?

[engrmariano]

16-35, 50, &amp; 70-200 is fine on FF. dont know with cropper...

[Keith B]

Now that I have the 24-70 I can say that this lens is very nice but my earlier comments are reinforced. The lens is nice but it is very vanilla. I find the reach isn't nearly long enough for an all-around lens and I may have a little regret letting my 24-105 go.


The gig I bought the 24-70 for, I was bouncing the a flash off the ceilings so rarely did I use it wide open. I got the shots I wanted but I wish I could have had a little more reach. Hind sight being 20/20 and if I felt like toting 2 bodies, I should have put my 16-35 on my 40D and 70-200 on my 5dmk2.