Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens OR Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens on a 50D

[Canonman]

Hey all, my first thread here. I'm positive that I'm ready for a new lens somewhere bwteeen the 16mm to 100mm range. I was originally considering the 16-35mark ii/2.8 and the 17-40/4.0 (both L series lenses)but I realize the extra $300(ish) is worth the difference in aperature. However, upon doing a bit more research I found how much people were enthused by the 24-70/2.8.


I currently have the following lenses:

Canon 100-400 IS
Canon 100mm macro
Tamron 18-200mm 3.5 to 6.3
Canon Kit lens



The Tamron 18-200 is an extremely versatile lens, but I'm aware it cannot compete with any of Canon's specified lenses, especially the L series,which is why I need ahigher quality lensin thewide-medium range.I love shooting landscape (sunrises/sunsets/lakes/reflections/etc) and I also have a fascination with waterfalls. Taking this into account, which lens would be the best for me? The 16-35mm 2.8 mark ii Lor the 24-70mm 2.8 L.


Thanks for all your help!

[Keith B]

I think there is a bit more price difference between the 16-35II and the 17-40. Like $700. If you are shooting landscapes mostly the 17-40 would probably be a good choice since you are going to want a higher f/stop for that.


What body are you shooting with?


If you are on a crop I'd say either the 16-35 or 17-40. You could also look into the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS too.


If you are on a full frame, I'd probably go with the 24-70. Most of the time you will find 24 wide enough and then having the range of 70 is nice. The 16-35 or 17-40 are very wide but are not very long and I think you will miss that.

[Canonman]

Keith, I'm using the 50d, which is a crop. I've heard the most positive feedback for the 16-35 ii. I briefly considered the 17-55 2.8 IS, but since it is an EF-S, I would rather stay away, for the possibility that I might upgrade to a full body in the future, probably the 5d mark ii.

[Keith B]

Canonman


I agree with you. Even when my only body was a 40D I never considered any EF-S lenses. I always knew I'd go to FF.


I shoot with a 5DmkII 99% of the time. The 16-35 is a great lens. It is my most fun lens but my 24-70 is my most used lens.


If all you shoot is landscapes you could be happy with the 16-35, but if you need the lens to be more versatile I'd go with 24-70. 24 is pretty wide for most things.

[Daniel Browning]

The 16-35 and 24-70 are both good lenses for full frame. Your choice should be determined by what angle of view you want to use most often. If you like "normal" on your 50D, then go for the 16-35. If you prefer "telephoto" on your 50D, then go for 24-70. (It will change when you get full frame.)


That said, are you aware that by restricting yourself to full frame lenses that you will pay over three times as much? And that even after paying so much more, the image quality will actually be worse?


For example, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is $450, while the EF 16-35 f/2.8 II is $1,500. But the Tamron is sharper, longer, and lighter. That's why I consider it a mistake to restrict yourself to EF lenses just because there is a "possibility" that you will upgrade to full frame in the future.


There is another complicating factor here. On a crop camera, the best EF lens in the "normal" range is the 16-35. But on full frame, the 17-40 becomes a much better deal, because f/4 gives you the same DOF as f/2.5 on APS-C, so you no longer need the f/2.8 like you did with a crop.


Hope that helps.

[Chuck Lee]

The Tamron 18-200 is an extremely versatile lens, but I'm aware it cannot compete with any of Canon's specified lenses, especially the L series,which is why I need ahigher quality lensin thewide-medium range.I love shooting landscape (sunrises/sunsets/lakes/reflections/etc) and I also have a fascination with waterfalls. Taking this into account, which lens would be the best for me?


Canonman, welcome to the DigPic.com Forum!


I think you are mistaking build quality and speed (large "apertures") with image quality. When shooting landscapes you will, most of the time, be using the smaller apertures (f8-f16)of thelens to get the greatest available DOF and will shoot long exposures with the camera on a tripod. At f8,most el-cheapo lenses perform admirably and will yield professional looking poster size prints.


As Daniel Browning has commented, I highly recommend the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 DII for shooting landscapes. On a XXD APS-C body I would choose this lens over the 17-40 f4 L. I tested one against a EF 17-35 f2.8 L and a Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4. For landscape shooting the Tamron was clearly the best value. I chose the EF 17-35 f2.8L because I don't shoot many landscapes. I loved the IQ and ability to shoot WA indoors under challenging lighting conditions. I use it most of the time on my 5D FF. I like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 on my 40D.I did not like the 17-40 f4 L for two things; 1) It was 1/3 stop slower than the other lenses at the same shutter speed, aperture and ISO. 2) Even though the IQ was as good as the other other two, the images appeared slightly red shifted. The older/discontinued 17-35 f2.8L was the same price as a new 17-40 f4 L. KEH has beautiful used EF lenses in pristene condition. I buy used L glass and have been fortunate in obtaining a nice set of the "triad" of f2.8 L zooms. 17-35, 28-70, & 70-200. I bought my 17-50 f2.8 DII, EF50 1.4, EF 100 f2.8 new.


So, if your mostly shooting landscapes, and think that your Tammy 18-200 isn't adequate enough, I'd rent a 16-35 f2.8L and do a side by side before investing that much money on a lens. If money is no object, go for it. I hear that is one sweet piece of glass!


If I was shooting landscapes seriously, I'd probably haveone of the new, if not at least two, of the new Tilt-Shift primes.


And that's how I see it, no matter how skewed that might be. [:)]


Good Luck with your aquisition.

[Keith B]

If I was shooting landscapes seriously, I'd probably haveone of the new, if not at least two, of the new Tilt-Shift primes.


And that's how I see it, no matter how skewed that might be. /emoticons/emotion-1.gif


Good Luck with your aquisition.






Oh yeah! The new 17mm Tilt-Shift looks soooo good!

[Chuck Lee]

Oh yeah! The new 17mm Tilt-Shift looks soooo good!


Shoot, I'd like to have a 24 f3.5 L to play around with. It's still getting top dollar.. http://www.keh.com/Product-Details/1/CE06009035333R/CE06/FE.aspx ("http://www.keh.com/Product-Details/1/CE06009035333R/CE06/FE.aspx)


I believe this is the same lens Vincent Laforet ("http://laforetvisuals.com/index.php) used for some of his award winning images. Somebody, please correct me if I'm wrong. The diorama airport is one of my favs. That can only be done with a TSE.


I'm waiting for it to go down to around 750- 800 USD. And... for my savings to catch back up after other expenditures this past year. [^o)]

[Keith B]

Yeah 24mm would probably be more practical.


The shots Vincent Laforet has of the train station under the CN Port-Commuters is so cool.