Lens dilemma

Hello all.

I am in a process getting the 5DSr and the thing i am now battling myself is:

Will be getting the 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens, but then starts the pain do i want to have 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens or the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens.

I am very fond of the idea of the f/2.8 but then again, i know i know i curse those nice shots ruined without IS.

The main use for the lens would be my travelling lens, and i am wondering would there actually be any need for other than the 16-35?

The 24-105 range just sounds so tempting to keep my options wider and naturally to have the IS to support my shaky hands :D.

Have read those reviews on the site more than enough times and still....cannot decide. What i understand is that the image quality between those 2 is not that big? Or is it?

Any ideas to solve this dilemma is more than welcome =)

best regards,
Kari

Go with the 24x70 II and you will have no regrets.
I had the previous version off the 16-35mm an sold it, rarely do I miss the wider focal length.
I had the 24-105 and really wanted the F/2.8.

24-70 II is where I ended up for a travel lens.

Hi Kari,

Welcome to the forum!

These are complex questions and there is not single correct answer. Fortunately, there is also not necessarily a "wrong" answer either. These are all good lenses capable to taking excellent photographs. My typically recommendation is to "shoot to need." In other words, start with a lens and then use it until you develop a definite need (by the way, I sometimes do not follow my own advice :) ).

A few comments, and as I am not familiar with your experiences, please forgive if all of this is simply stating the obvious:

• 16-35 mm is considered "ultra wide angle." As such, it is typically regarded as a "niche" lens. If it was your only lens, all your subjects may seem very small and far away, unless you can get very close, at which point you may have issues with distortion.
• 24-70 mm (or 24-105) are much more typical "general purpose" focal lengths. If asked, I suspect many people would state that the lens they own in this focal length range is their "most often" used lens.
• The 24-70 II is a bit sharper than the 24-105 f/4. As you are getting the 5Dsr, you may appreciate this additional sharpness. But, both are very good lenses.
• The 24-105 f/4 is significantly less expensive, at least if you buy used, as it is often available for ~$600. So, you are paying a good amount for a bit more sharpness and f/2.8. If you are unsure, you may want to buy the 24-105 f/4 IS used, and then sell it if you decide to upgrade.

My typical travel kit for the 5DIII is:

• Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8
• EF 24-70 II
• EF 70-200 II

For traveling, the 24-70 II is, by far, my most used lens. So, I would encourage you to start with either the 24-70 II, 24-105 f/4 or the 24-70 f/4 IS. But I find the other two lenses (14 f/2.8 and 70-200 II) very useful.

Unless you really enjoy the UWA perspective, and if this is primarily for travel, the second focal length range I would recommend is actually not UWA, but a telephoto lens including:

• 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS. Small(ish), light(ish), good general purpose telephoto lens.
• 70-200 f/2.8 II Heavier, bigger, but gives you f/2.8 and is probably my favorite lens. Takes the 2x TC well, so you can get to 400 mm if needed. I would go this route if you want f/2.8 for low light or depth of field reasons.
• 100-400 II. This if you primarily want the extra reach of 400 mm. It is excellent from 100-400, but if you do not want 400 mm, then the 70-300 L is smaller/lighter/less expensive and the 70-200 II gives you f/2.8.

There are some other great lenses in the telephoto range (70-200 f/4 IS, for example). But those are the three I would consider for travel.

If you do want the UWA perspective, the 16-35 f/4 IS is considered sharper than the 16-35 f/2.8 II. So, if you want sharpness, go 16-35 f/4 IS, if you want f/2.8 then that lens.

For what it is worth, I have marveled at some simple travel kits. One member on the forum traveled the world with the Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8, EF 35 f/1.4 L (the Mk II is now available) and the 70-200 f/2.8 II. Very capable kit, covers a wide focal length range with good, fast glass. You can see his work here. My point being, buy some good capable and flexible equipment, and the rest is up to you.

Good luck,
Brant

A few thoughts, somewhat random perhaps:

1) IMHO the 16-35/2.8II is NOT where you want to start. The 16-35/4IS is a MUCH better lens in that range, IMHO, and it's cheaper. Wait for the 16-35/2.8III if 2.8 is your mandate.
2) The 24-70/2.8II is a much wiser choice for a 5Ds IMHO than the 24-105. Much newer, far improved optics.
3) 16-35 and 24-70 is too much duplication IMHO. Either 24-70 OR 16-35 plus 70-200 (or 100-400). I've been having a lot of fun lately with 16-35 and 100-400, though that's with two bodies. See http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-...an-amateur.htm
4) Consider 16-35/4IS and 85/1.2, or 100 Macro, or...

My experience with the 5DsR takes me to the following

16-35 f4 fantastic lens and low light landscapes are still a tripod shot one stop isn't a deal killer. And you can crop zoom to 50 mm w/o much concern.

50 mm sigma 1.4 Art. Low light, my copy is wonderful and focuses just fine. Crop zoom to 70mm no concern

70-200 2.8 II. Everything you want it to be.

The 24-105 should never be on a 5DsR. Way too soft north of 70 ish mm

Thank you all for the answers. I might need to add a bit to my lens situation.

I am mostly doing landscape, night and wildlife/macro photos. I am allready waiting my samyang/rokinnon 14mm f/2.8 to arrive. That 16-35 f/2.8 is mainly there to support me with landscape and stuff like that, the rokinnon is going to be my night etc. lens mainly. (also i want the challenge from full manual lens to improve my skills :) )

Also will be getting the 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro with the 5DSr body together from a nice package.

So what i understand from the discussion, is that the 16-35 is no the most optimal travel lens, and perfectly get it since it really is an wide lens.

Having 24-? still gives me nice enough area to have those landscape pictures on the travels.

24-70 f/2.8 vs f/4 IS now the rivals then. I also take pictures quite much inside buildings aka churches etc. But is the IS my best friend or the 2.8?

My 2 cents

16-35 2.8 is money who won't use very often in landscape compared to the f4.

If landscapes are your norm 2.8 vs 4.0 doesn't seem like a good place to spend money. Also inside churches etc depth of field drives the shot on the 5DsR and IS is your friend. I have some handheld waterfall shots from my glacier trip that I will post tonight for you to look at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peety3

See http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-...an-amateur.htm

---

I almost spit out my Cheerios at most of those. I do not read Rockwell, but am well aware of his reputation. Seems well earned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karsaa

I am mostly doing landscape

---

Landscape shots are often shot to maximize the depth of field of the scene, so f/8-f/22. Sometimes a "landscape" will have a narrow DoF, requiring a faster aperture. Also, landscapes can be shot with almost any focal length. You can see this from Bryan's list of the best "landscape" lenses, which includes lenses of all sorts of different focal lengths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karsaa

I am mostly doing.........night...... photos..

---

The Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 is my night lens. First, if you get a good copy, it is a great lens. But quality control seems to be an issue. I bought two lenses, tested them quickly, and kept the better one (which was much better) and returned the second as defective (really, it was).

If I ever do more nightscapes, I would also look at the Canon 24 f/1.4, Sigma 24, f/1.4, Zeiss 21 f/2.8, and Zeiss 25 f/2. Lots of options. Probably start with the Rokinon, but there is room to grown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karsaa

I am mostly..... wildlife......photos.

---

EF 100-400 Mk II is a great lens for wildlife. I own the Mk 1 version. I wanted more reach so I got the Sigma 150-600 Sport. But I would start with the 100-400 Mk II, if you want more reach, add the 1.4x TC. Then if you want more after that, then maybe something else like the Sigma.

BTW, you will also find the 100-400 MK II on Bryan's list of landscape lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karsaa

I am mostly doing....macro photos.

---

EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS macro is a great place to start. That is my macro lens. Also works as a very good portrait lens.

If you really get into Macro, the EF 180 mm is maybe the best pure "macro" lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karsaa

But is the IS my best friend or the 2.8?

---

That is the question isn't it. IS is best if you do not have movement in your photo as you gain exposure by slower shutterspeeds. If you have people, animals, etc, you are better off with f/2.8 as you can gain exposure and do not sacrifice shutterspeed. If you want narrow depth of field, f/2.8 is better than IS.

That said, you haven't mentioned kids yet, I suspect you might prefer IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karsaa

I am mostly doing landscape, night and wildlife/macro photos..

---

I am going to propose two kits for you and your 5DsR, intended to be about the same price:

Kit 1:

• Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8
• EF 24-70 f/2.8 II
• EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS Macro
• EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 II IS

Kit 2:

• Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8
• EF 16-35 f/4 IS
• EF 24-70 f/4 IS
• EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS Macro
• EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 II IS

Kit 1 gives you f/2.8 in the general purpose range. For about the same money, Kit 2 gives you the 16-35 and 24-70 f/4 IS. I'll also point out that for filters, your primary lenses (16-35, 24-70, 100-400) all take 77 mm filters. Which is nice so you would be buying one polarizer, ND filter, etc.

If you end up wanting some wider apertures, you can look for primes such as a 50 f/1.4, the 40 f/2.8 pancake, etc.

BTW. For nightscapes, landscapes, and macro, you should also be thinking about a good tripod.

This looks nice and the filter point is definetly a good one, thank you for that:

Kit 2:
Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8
EF 16-35 f/4 IS
EF 24-70 f/4 IS
EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS Macro

I left the 100-400 out since i currently own the sigma 150-500 and atleast for now i am happy with it. Will see how it feels once i get my hand to the full frame.

Currently have quite sturdy tripod naturally, first bought something i thought would be steady, until i slapped the sigma 150-500 to it on a windy day on river shore...

Many thanks to you all for the answers, i really am happy to have advice from people who have experience on the lenses etc. Helps beginner like me to do right choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karsaa

Kit 2:
Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8
EF 16-35 f/4 IS
EF 24-70 f/4 IS
EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS Macro

---

If you are set on needing the wide angle of the 16-35, then as others have said the f/4 is an excellent lens. However, with the 16-35 f/4 IS, I do not see the need for the 24-70... there is to much redundancy. I would replace the 24-70 with a 70-200 (f/2.8L IS II if you can afford it... otherwise the f/4L IS), and it fills the gap up to your Sigma as well.

It sounds as if you are not currently shooting Full Frame (FF). If that is the case, do you really know what 16 mm (or even 24 mm) looks like on a FF? I would check that out first. Even though I did all the math in my head, when I went FF I was surprised how wide 24 mm looked. It took a while to get used to. I also want a 16-35 f/4, but also realize it is going to replace my 24-105 mm when I do get it. Another experience that I had when going FF was that I waited too long to get the 70-200mm. Since I have had the 70-200mm; I love it for landscapes, wildlife, portraits, low light situations, etc.

In the end, it has to fit you needs. What shots do you have in your head that you want to capture over the next year or two? Write them down, and get a kit that helps you accomplish that set of goals. You do not have to have everything right now. You can get your camera and the 16-35 and play with it for a month or two... then it will become more obvious what you need to fulfill your shooting goals (fill the gaps), and what you want (or can) carry with you. Also, if you set some long term goals of shots you want to get, you can go search flickr (or other site) to find those shots to determine focal lengths others used. There are some creative people out there and the most obvious answer is not always the most creative or match what you want to accomplish.

Pat

Yes, i am well aware of the joyfull amount of stuff FF gets with wider lenses, that's the reason i am getting it.

The 70-200 is definetly on my radar at some point, but not atm. I have spent my time more than enough past few years on flickr etc. looking the pictures i maybe someday learn to take. It is just now that i finally have the money to invest, start with this end of the lens and then, when hopefullu my knowledge and skills improve look forward.

I am glad you found the advice helpful. Hard to go wrong, perhaps slightly better. I am clearly a fan of the 16-35 f4. I don't miss the stop to 2.8 and it is the lens that pretty much stayed on the "R" the whole trip, unless I was doing the huge multi shot panos.

I just uploaded 3 waterfall pics that I promised earlier today and you should be able to download the full sized jpg. sharpening was set to "fine detail" in DPP4 (4,1,1). (https://www.flickr.com/gp/77760916@N05/W0b7wE) will take you to the 1st. They were shot w/ the 16-35 at either 1/6 or 1/8 shutter speed on the 5DsR. These were handheld as had I had my tripod (long hike more of a scouting trip) I would have had yet longer speeds. So a sea level couch potato, hiking 25 minutes+ then scrambling up a waterfall and doing longish shutter speeds on a very high resolution sensor - I am very happy w/ the sharpness, etc. Not my favorite waterfall shots these are really more of a real world demonstration of the IS in the 16-35 f4

Why a 16-35 if you're getting a 14? [Side note: I recently revamped our wide-angle lineup. We'd already gotten down to a 16-35/2.8II and a 14/2.8II, but there's two shooters under this roof, but I knew my wife had gotten the "11-24 itch" after I rented it OOPS. Not willing to ditch the 14/2.8 before the 16-35/2.8, the 16-35/2.8 got sold locally for $900 and I got the 16-35/4IS just before the rebates ran out, then got her the 11-24, so the 14/2.8 became the "2.8/specialty/remote" lens. She's happy with 11-24 and 24-105 on a 5D3, I'm happy with a 16-35/4IS as a workhorse and an old-model 24-70 when -35 isn't enough but 70-200 is too constricting.]

Although I'd say it's good to know your future roadmap, I'd say there's also the reality that you're (probably) going to buy one lens at a time, so why not debate who's on first, and what's on second, and just say I don't know's on third. :)

Well i currently have following hardware:

Canon eos 550D, Tamron 18-270 and sigma 150-500. Bought that samyang 14mm f/2.8 to have something to use and train for the current body, since i am pretty much using the 18mm only from the tamron, to shoot my landscapes etc. And the samyang was dirt cheap :P.

I am currently also looking a tele lens to get as a pre-owned version and allready have run into couple good options price wise. Just trying to find out how they perform with 2xIII extender. Easy to find the 1.4xIII extender comments and pictures but not that much info with 2x extender.

What i have currently been looking is ef300 f/4 IS just no idea how it performs with the 2xIII extender. There is also ef300 f/2.8 IS usm also in decent price and what i understand, this lens is performer with both extenders and i think the 600mm is definetly enought currently for me. (well there is the ef400 f/2.8 is usm too, but that is still bit on the pain side on my budget)

Tele lens is still just in inspection phase, because i am pretty sure, that at some point i do realise that the sigma 150-500 is getting "old" =)

Really nice waterfall shots indeed and shows really well the lenses and R's capabilities.

Hi Karsaa,

I recently made a comparison that might be of some use to you.

I own the 300 mm f4 and the 2x iii. ( I use the 2x iii mostly for the 70-200mm f2.8 ii.) I recently received a few days rental of the 300mm 2.8 ii as a gift. It takes the 2x iii very well. Naturally I wanted to see the comparison of these two for some real-word shots. Bryan already has great comparisons under standard lab conditions.

I already knew the 300 f4 plus 2x iii gives lots of color fringing on edges with hard contrast, so I looked for a subject that would not pose that problem. These hydrangeas were roughly 20 meters distant. There was plenty of late afternoon sun. The flowers were not really very attractive, but they seemed suitable as test subjects.

These were shot a few minutes apart on the 5D iii. For each of these I selected the sharpest of 3 handheld shots. I processed each in DPP to produce the sharpness and contrast that seemed best for that individual shot. The 300 f4 seemed to need and to tolerate a little more sharpening and contrast. These were then cropped to width 2048 pixels (roughly a 50% view) before jpeg conversion.

My impression is that the 300mm 2.8 is better, but I was surprised that the difference was less than I expected. I would expect a bigger advantage for the 300mm f2.8 for subjects with very hard edges.

I was also pleasantly surprised that the physical balance of the 300 f2.8 was good, so that the extra weight was very manageable.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/670/2...07772ff8_z.jpg300mm f4 2x iii at f8 by Danny Watson, on Flickr

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/670/2...07772ff8_z.jpg300mm f4 2x iii at f8 by Danny Watson, on Flickr


https://farm1.staticflickr.com/674/2...0570371c_z.jpg300mm 2.8 2x iii at f8 by Danny Watson, on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5712/...cb934469_z.jpg300mm f4 2x iii contrasty edges by Danny Watson, on Flickr

Wait, this finally computed in my brain....you're buying a 5DsR, and you're shopping for off-brand telephoto lenses based on how well they take a 2x TC? Go buy a 7D2 already and whatever telephoto you want, it'll just be memories anyway, right?

From the rockwell's amateur list ...Polarizer over UV filter... i actually have to do this with my tamron lens, for some reason the bloody polarizer don't stick to the front of the objective :o only to the UV.....:confused:

Finally today had the day when was able to press ORDER button. After long thoughs and feelings desided to go on light version of the lenses.

The winners were Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM and Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD.

Naturally will be looking also if there is any good offers for the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, just managed to miss the canon's get money back offer.

Now just wait wait to get my hands on the new stuff =)

Congrats on the new gear. Look forward to your impressions and pics

Congrats. You mentioned you wanted to do night time photos... I have the 24 f/1.4 and it gets heavily used. Enjoy!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

That was my main argument to get it and maybe also that i found one used in good price.

How nice, apparently got a monday version of the tamron's lens. With 5 dsr if i am lucky, its af works. With my old 550d i get lucky bit often and when it does, it seems to take ages to have it focus. Oh well off to chat tomorrow with the seller