16-35 = 24-70?

[Charlie]

Hi, I'm a first time user and am just wondering whether the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM on a cropped sensor could equate more or less to the24-70mm f/2.8L USM on full frame.


I know on a cropped sensor the 16-35 resembles more 26-56mm so its obviously not an exact match as the 24-70 but I'm thinking more in terms of the suitability for portrait work.


The aperture is the same, the focal length not hugely different. The 24-70 is considered to be a great studio lens. How successfully could the 16-35 be used as a portrait/studio lens on a cropped sensor or are there other issues, eg distortion, to consider?


Thank you very much.

[Photomage]

Ultimately, it comes down to personal choice, and what kind of result you're after.


Either lens should be fine for portraits.


The wider lens will have a less flat perspective at 16mm, i.e. anything closer to the lens will appear bigger. The crop factor won't affect the perspective.


Have look at some photos here:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/indigopulse/4257989675/in/pool-98322963@N00

[Brendan7]

Making super-wide angle lenses is technologically difficult, and so lenses wider than 30mm are often soft (14mm f/2.8, etc.)


I would personally prefer the 24-70 on full frame OR crop sensor. It's cheaper and I think its range is more useful. The 24-70 is recognized as the "bread and butter" wedding & portrait lens. your choice.


brendan

[Keith B]

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.

[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.