Printable View
Would appreciate suggestions: we now have a 50D with - 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 4IS. Looking to get a 2.8 lens for interior (party, wedding etc.) and landscape photography. Reviewing the 16-35 II and the 24-70. What would be best between these two or does anyone have a third lens to suggest. Thanks
I have the 50D also and the 16-35II and love it. You already have the 24-105 like I have and the 16 is great on crop. 24 is still too narrow for landscape which is what I do the most. No IS on either version so....I would say 16-35 you already have all other areas covered. :)
I have both and they serve different purpose for me. The 16-35 I use for landscape and group shots at the 35 end. The 24-70 really shines on portraits. IQ and build quality on both lenses are superb but if I have to choose, I'd go for 16-35.
I have both too and I think both of them are excellent lenses! It's really down to what focal length you need the most. In terms of IQ I don't think you're making any compromise on getting either of the lenses. So your choice.
However, if I were in your situation I will probably update my 17-40L with 16-35L II first. Since the 24-105 is newer than the 24-70 and it has IS. Once you go FF, the 16-35L will really shine!
For landscape you have the 17-40 to cover, for event you have the 24-105. Any reason why these two lenses can'taccomodate your needs?
We found to be shootingmuch more with a fill flashandwithout a flash and believe a f/2.8aperture can help us go to a lower ISO settingto geta fastshutter speed.Also, a wider aperture canget usmore ambient lightto give usa morenatural looking flash photograph. Our thinking was to get the 16-35, since this focal length is god for indoor 'close' shooting and be good for landscape. But we have the 17-40, so we thoght of the 24-70 and not go with the 16-35?? No?
For wedding and event photography there is no doubt f/2.8 is the way to go if your shooting style revolves around low light without flash. IMO sell off your 17-40 and 24-105 and pick up a Tokina 11-16 and a EF-S 17-55 or 24-70. Or, for $400-500 less than the 16-35, add both a Tokina 11-16 and a Tamron 28-75 and keep your existing lenses. It's not worth the cost for a 16-35 for use on a crop body only--you are paying a premium for the range of a lens which you will not use. However, if you are planning on FF in the near future considering the 16-35 isn't that bad of an idea. You may also want to seriously consider picking up some prime lenses, something along the lines of a Sigma 30/1.4, Canon/Sigma 50/1.4, or a EF 85/1.8.
-Matt
The set-up you have covers virtually all focal lengths in decent light. Two of them have IS, so you even gain a couple of stops(but not motion stopping). I imagine your concern must be low light.
For the price of either of those lenses you can get two (or maybe three) primes: the f/1.8 28, f/1.4 50, f/1.8 85 spring to mind as excellent indoor, low light lenses. I just shot a play with the cheap-o 50mm f/1.8 ($85!!) and the results were nothing short of spectacular.
As long as you know where you will be shooting, you put the focal length on that works, and if you aren't sure, they are (comparatively) smaller and lighter so carrying two or three isn't a problem. I DON'T think 2.8 will gain you enough light to shoot indoors. Dawn and dusk landscapes, yes, indoors, no.
Best of luck. You already have a terrific setup. Add one prime at a time and see what you can make of it!
In this case, I would seriously looking at the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. This lens has everything you need-wide angle, IS, f/2.8 and"L" IQ. You can always sell it when you go full frame. IMO keeping the lens with the 50D makes a great back up for your fullframe im the future.
I'm currently using an EF24-70 f/2.8L as my general purpose lens. When I gotthe24-70the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS had just come out and there weren't many reviews of this brand new lens. After knowing and hearing great reviews of the 17-55, If I could do it again I would get the EF-S in a heart beat. My 24-70 f/2.8L is a great lens, it's sharp wide open, but it's not really wide on a 40D, and Ikeep wanting more on the wide end. I just don't use my general purpose lens that much to consider selling my 24-70 and getting the 17-55. That's why I'm keeping my 24-70 f/2.8L for now.
Thanks - we thought about going to the primes- <span class="large"]<span style="font-size: x-small; color: #ffffcc; font-family: arial;"]Can<span class="large"]<span style="color: #ffffcc; font-family: arial;"]Canon EF 35mm f/2on EF 28mm f/1.8
<table border="0" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"]
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left"]<span class="large"]<span style="font-size: x-small; color: #ffffcc; font-family: arial;"]Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="0" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"]
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="left"]<span class="large"]<span style="font-size: x-small; color: #ffffcc; font-family: arial;"]Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Just been thinking about buying one of the lenses mentioned in the replies, so I have read reviews on most of these in just the last week. I definitely agree that the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is something you should seriously consider, thanks for bringing this up, Matt. As Bryan alludes to in his review, it seems the only reason this lens doesn't have an "L" designation is because it is EF-S. Second to this lens, I think looking at primes would be a good idea. I am considering the 24-70 because I am anticipating upgrading to FF sometime soon, otherwise, I would think that it is not wide enough on a 1.6x sensor, but you do have the 17-40. However, the 17-55 would cover most of that range which would reduce lens change-overs. Good luck.
Stephen
I have thought about this quite a bit too, read all of the reviews etc. I don't have the lenses, but I would go with the 24-70. The 16-35 is more expensive, and for the price you could get a 24-70 and a 430EX for your issues with the 17-40. The 16-35 at 2.8 will not provide a lot of DOF close up. Group shots in low light may require stopping down and using a flash anyway. At that point there is little IQ difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35. Also with landscapes, usually you stop down to the point of parity between the lenses. While the 24-70 provides an extra stop and better bokeh than the 24-105. With that said I do like the look of the 16-35 the wide situational portraits it can produce with bokeh are great, these are much less common in everyday shooting. Good luck, I wish I had some extra money so I am forced to make the same decisions.
Tom
I've got the original 16-35, and I like it, and the 16-35 is better, but...
Even on a crop body, I don't find it very useful for indoor people shots. Kids on the trampoline, sort of, but a good prime letting you work at 1.4 - 2.0 is going to rock compared to a 2.8 zoom. For landscape, I don't see any real advantage over the 17-40 f/4. Landscapes don't usually have all that much motion blur, in which case a tripod and a few stops down work great!
I'd opt for the 24-70 f/2.8 on my way to a full frame body when it's time to rotate that hardware, and keep that 17-40 for landscape work, though the point of an even wider angle lens for the crop body is a good one. There's something just so dramatic about a sweeping landscape with an emphasis on foreground (or foresky) that's just maniacal! 16mm on a full frame would be equivalent to 10mm on a 1.6 crop, so... have fun getting nutty :)
I think I would go with 24-70 for multi purpose and 17-40 for landscape.
We want to thank all for your suggestions. We just picked-up a 50 1.4 hood and all. Will 'play' with this lens in low light before spending 1200-1500 on a new 2.8 lens (16-35 ii or 24-70). The results we get on our new 50D from our "4s": 17-40, 24-105and70-200 IS are beautiful. Maybe the 'new' 24-70 ii will be out this spring or fall??Or maybe we will run into a used 16-35ii??
Appreciate your suggestions,
Fairfield
I've seen this question posed a million times, but I'll resist the urge to skip this post and... what the heck, jump right in!
I think the choice boils down to your subject matter and the overall pace under which you'll be shooting.
If you're shooting events and groups of people the 24-70 will serve you well, even on a crop body.
If you find yourself needing to zoom in quickly on a single individual, the zoom will be ideal for portraits.
I'm not sure why people recommend primes for fast paced event coverage. Variables change too quickly to be limited by a single focal distance.
The 16-35 would be nice to have on a second FF body for extra wide coverage in the event that it's needed. But if your subject is close to the camera their face will distort resulting in some unflattering pictures. On the contrary, the compression on the long end of the 24-70 will give you some very attractive close-ups.
BTW, it may be that I have no interest in landscape/interior photography (I primarily photograph people) but I have almost never needed to shoot wider than 24mm on a crop body. If I did it was because I was in a very tight room, my back was up against a wall, and I was dealing with a large group of people. I have tried the Nikon D3/14-24mm and as impressively wide and sharp as that lens/body combination was, I'd still have no interest and snapping pictures of my friends and family as I would find the pictures too... "documentary", if that makes sense.
Regarding other's posts about fast primes - they will stop low light action, yes. but lighting is not always ideal and your subjects won't always be lit properly. Plus wide apertures produce very shallow depth of field. This effect can grow tired quickly and can make focusing much trickier in the mid-focal range. Ultimately, you'll need flash and you'll need ISO1600 or higher. Balance your flash fill with your ISO and you'll find you can manually adjust your shutter speeds fast enough and you may find you can close down your aperture down for greater depth of field and still get great exposures. That sentence may seem confusing but if you try it yourself you'll find there's no better way to shoot indoor events.
My 24-70 almost never comes off of my crop body. I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and rarely sees the light of day (hey, it's winter, I'm stuck shooting indoors. Can't have a telephoto indoors!). I've covered weddings with this setup and have produced brilliant pictures. When I get my tax return and purchase the 5Dii I'll have even greater ISO performance giving me faster shooting and the ability to stop down even more. Ultimately, it's knowing what kind of conditions/challenges you'll be faced with and what tools you want to get the best results from these situations. I've found that manual settings and high ISO, bracketed flash and an EF 24-70 focal range is the perfect combination that has never let me down.
<div class="ForumPostButtons"]Jonathan-</div>
<div class="ForumPostButtons"]</div>
<div class="ForumPostButtons"]Thank you for your helpful suggestion. I have rented the 16-35 and find at the level I am at - my 17-40 is just fine. Also, I enjoy photos with more detail of image - the far away feel does not appeal to me. The 17-40 is all I need for landscape use. I will get the 24-70 and compare it with my 24-105. Some suggested touse the 27-70 2.8 for <span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Trebuchet MS;"]indoor people photography (eg parties, weddings); and the lighter longer reaching 24-105mm use this for travel and landscape etc.. If I find I am using one much more - sell the one less used. I am done taking the time on the hardware and get to taking photos.</div>
<div class="ForumPostButtons"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Trebuchet MS;"]John</div>