hi guys! I
Printable View
hi guys! I
I have both
I like the 16-35mm over the 24-70. It just seems to be a better lens.
What do you plan on using the lenses for?Do you have a full-frame or crop camera?I think with a little more background we could give you better feedback.
Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but really the biggest difference between these two lenses is the zoom range. Both are going to give superb pictures.
If you have nothing wider than 50 currently, first I
I
thanks guys! I
Given that, I'd say the 24-70mm f/2.8L is your best bet. The 16-35mm is definitely too wide/short for a walkaround lens on a FF body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr
Maybee I have a bad copy of the 24-70mm. I do alot of large prints and my copy just never delivered. I sent it in for warranty work once but it still performs the same. Alot of people really like this lens, maybee if I had a diffrent copy I would to. The 24-70 range is really good for everyday use.
My 16-35L has produced alot of really nice pictures, it is wide. It really depends on what you are concider everyday use if it would work for you or not. My walk around lens is a 35mm F1.4L and before I got it I usualy had the 16-35L on my camera when I went out. The 16-35mm may be to wide for you, thats a question you can only answer.
My camera is a 5D Mark II as well.
@ HDNitehawk - how do you find the 35mm f1.4 L on the 5D Mark II? I know the zoom lens will be versatile but I
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr
Its great.
I find the 35mm 1.4L sharper than the 16-35mm and the 24-70mm. On my copy the auto focus is dead on and usualy the only problems I have with focus are my own fault, like not going with a F stop to get enough depth of field for close shots. You will give up the versatility of the zoom and gain some IQ. I like to do large prints, I have the pixma 9000 and 9500 and do alot of 13 x 19. The 35mm 1.4 gives me a few more keepers than the zooms do.
If you do not do large prints, and you do not need the low light abilites of a 35mm 1.4L, then the versatility of the zooms might be the way to go.
would it be better to get the 35mm f1.4 than the 24-70 f2.8?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr
Should I eat an apple or a pear? [8-)]
I find that my 50mm has taken the place of my 24-70. So I'd suggest the 16-35. I am really impressed with IQ on the wide end. At 35 it is very good but the middle is a little soft.
The 35L is a great lens but I prefer a 50 over it. 35 is great for wide scenic portraits in tighter areas but if you try to get tighter subject shots you get distorted features.
thank you for your replies guys...still can
for a walk around lens, you will want the 24-70. Anything wider than 24 on fullframe is way to wide. you get a great set of options in its zoom. If it helps, think about it this way, dont worry about quality of the glass, just focus on what you want to shoot as for walk around. with 24-70 you can give yourself a tighter crop, or loosen it up a little. the 16-35 is just to loose for walk around. Even if was to go to a festival i
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Definately an apple. Honestly you'd be mad to go with the pear. In fact I can't believe you even considered it. I used tothink ofyou asan informative member of these forums John but I've lost all faith in your ability to think rationally since this statement. A pear... my god, what is the world coming to. I blame snuggies.
[:D]