Canon 16-35 II or the 24-70 2.8 Lenses??

[Fairfield]

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

[GSPhoto]

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.

[varok]

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.

[Benjamin]

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!

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

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?

[Fairfield]

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?

[MVers]

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

[I chase light]

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!

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

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.

[Fairfield]

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>