16-35 = 24-70?

[Brendan7]

I have these lenses but have never used them on a crop but I'll tell you 35mm on the 16-35 is not it's strong point. It is a little soft. Even at 2.8 you will not get a very diffused background either, making it a really bad choice for portraits. You'd be way better off with the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS.

what he said. right...[8-|]

[Photomage]

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[SupraSonic]

24-70 mm will do.For crowded places go for 16-35

[Jon Ruyle]

I won't tell you which focal length you should use, but if you go wide, I definitely agree with those who suggest an EF-s lens rather than a wide EF lens. When you buy a lens like the 16-35, you're paying a premium (in weight and often in quality as well as dollars) for a lens that can cover the whole 36mm frame. In other words, similar EF-s lens will be cheaper, lighter, and probably better.

[Jon Ruyle]

I should add that I'm not just saying that because Mark has an EF-S 17-55 for sale []

[Mark Elberson]

I should add that I'm not just saying that because Mark has an EF-S 17-55 for sale [img]/emoticons/emotion-1.gif[/img]



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

It wasquite serendipitous though!

[Charlie]

Thank you everyone for your feedback.


I do have the 16-35 (by accident- long story!) but its unopened as I decide whether to keep it.


I've certainly been leaning towards returning it but one last option was to use it now as an equivalent to the 24-70 portrait (didn't know how successful that would be) and also as a walk around lens and then down the line as a wide angle on a full frame body.


I think there's better options though.


Thanks again.