16-35 or 24-70?

<p>Hi Gang,</p>

<p>Here's another "What should I buy" question. We see a lot of them and the resulting discussion is often very valuable. Many thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I'm seriously considering upgrading from my 7D to the 5DIII now that the prices have dropped and I'm trying to figure out what lens to hang on it. I already have the 70-200 f/4 for the long end and I'm torn between the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 24-70 f/2.8 as a companion. The 24-105 is a nice balance and has IS, but I had one a long time ago and it wasn't very sharp, so I would need some convincing about that lens. I mostly shoot travel scenes and landscapes with an occasional portrait now and then. I had always assumed I would go with the big, heavy 24-70, but my buddy has the 16-35 and loves it. What to do, what to do?</p>

<p>Any suggestions, advice or personal experiences would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>Cheers,<br />Dave</p>

<p>I personally love wider angle lenses [they capture more of the scene and you can get some interesting shots with it]. I haven't used the 24-70, so I can't attest to it, but the 16-35 is pretty sharp, and is my favorite canon lens that I've ever used. I mostly shoot landscape/travel type stuff to, and I find this lens useful.<br>

It might not be too great for portraiture, however, being wide angle.</p>

My 24-70 is my most used lens by far. My 16-35 is my least used lens. Only you can decide by using them. You can't think your way

through to the correct answer for you.

<p>No contest between the two for me - the 16-35 by a wide margin. Learned my lesson a while ago - for what I shoot, I don't need a fast, heavy, bulky mid-range zoom. I would go for the f/4 version of the 16-35 though - for the IS alone. The money saved would go right into a 24-70/4 IS - even though I am contemplating if I need a mid-range zoom at all.</p>

<p>Richard Hatch is right - it depends on how you want things to look, how close you are, etc. As you can see from the two answers above, you will only be able to find out what other people do, which has nothing to do with what you do. They're both sharp and work fine, I have them. For what I usually do, both of them are necessary, but that's just me.</p>

<p>I think the 24-70 is more useful for most people and it is not very big as far as these f2.8 lenses go. However, the 16-35mm f4 is really good, and I think I would find for general wandering about taking photos a 16-35 + 50mm + 70+mm lens would work very nicely instead of a 24-70 + 70+mm. The 16-35 f4 is just like a smaller 24-70mm f2.8. I guess the real thing to ask yourself is how many shots wider than 24mm you are likely to take. The 24-70mm is more useful, though, if you want to use just one lens.</p>

<p>The Canon EF 24-70 mm f/2.8L II USM is my main workhorse. I use the Canon EF 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS II USM more than the Canon EF 16-35 mm f/2.8L II USM.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"personal experiences would be greatly appreciated"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't mention any other lenses that might you own: that information is probably relevant.</p>

<p>But commenting without that information: I' keep the 7D and generally carrying it around with the 5DMkIII and I'd hang a 16 to 35 on one camera and 70 to 200 on the other being able to swap as necessary.</p>

<p>That's is my personal experience and exactly how I originally designed my DSLR kit apropos Zoom Lenses, but with two earlier model cameras and using a 70 to 200 F/2.8, not F/4. The aim is to leverage the coverage apropos FoV with two only Cameras and only two Zoom Lenses.</p>

<p>As already mentioned - that aim and functionality may be not at all useful to you.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Since I never shoot wider than 24mm on full frame, and have a 24-70 (as well as 24, 35, and 50mm primes), I personally have no need for the 16-35. But that's just <em>me.</em></p>

<p>24-70 and 16-35 quite different focal length ranges. Perhaps you could borrow your friend's 16-35, and see how much shooting you do below 24mm.</p>

<p>You need both, but, if limited to one, I'd go for the 24-70mm. This covers the walk-about focal lengths on a full-frame body. I'm not saying that ultra-wide focal lengths aren't very useful at times, but I shoot much more in the 24-70mm range.</p>

<p>BTW, if you're not already doing so, shoot in Raw and use digital lens optimization to correct for geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc., at every focal length and every aperture. Canon's Digital Photo Professional, Lightroom, Photoshop all DxO Optics Pro have DLO modules. I was ready to give up on my 24-105mm, but started using DLO in 2009, elevating the results to comparable to prime lenses. This is particularly important at the wider end of the zoom spectrum. </p>

<p>Thanks, everybody. Lots of good advice. My buddy just admitted that he seldom shoots wider than 24 mm on his 16-35 and likes it primarily because it's lighter than the 24-70. He also suggested looking at the 16-35 f/4 and 24-70 f/4 because they're lighter and have IS, but I have an f/2.8 for my 7D and really like the wider aperture so I'm not so sure about that.</p>

<p>David - yep, I shoot in RAW and use Lightroom 6 and I've noticed that DLO has improved over the years. Those images I shot with my 40D and 24-105 look better now than they did in earlier versions of Lightroom.</p>

<p>Mostly landscape, 16-35.<br>

Mostly people, 24-70.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He also suggested looking at the 16-35 f/4 and <strong>24-70 f/4</strong> because they're lighter and <strong>have IS</strong>, but <strong>I have an f/2.8 for my 7D</strong> and <strong>really like the wider aperture</strong> so I'm not so sure about that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you like the larger Aperture of F/2.8 (compared to F/4) when the F/2.8 lens was used on your 7D?<br /> Is it for Shallow DoF or for arresting Subject Movement or for some other reason?</p>

<p>> If for Shallow DoF then, an F/4 Lens used on the 5D you are considering buying, will give just about the same (actually a bit smaller) DoF when compared to an F/2.8 Lens used on a 7D for the same Subject Framing.</p>

<p>> If for the ability to use a one stop faster Shutter Speed at any given ISO the purpose being to arrest Subject Movement – then the 5DMkIII arguably would allow you that benefit by increasing the ISO one stop (compared the 7D) with little effect apropos noise.</p>

<p>It occurs to me that your friend’s suggestion warrants close and careful consideration - especially considering that your OP implied that you do find Image Stabilization a worthy and useful lens functionality and later it is implied that weight may be a consideration.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>PS I am still interested to know any other lenses that you might have</p>

<p>Hi William,</p>

<p>Many thanks for the help. To answer the question, I have the 70-200 f/4, which is a sweet little travel lens, although I very seldom use it. When I do use it, however, I often wish it was longer and I'm considering selling it in favor of the 100-400. I wouldn't carry the 100-400 when I travel for work, but it would be nice on my annual visits to Yellowstone and my planned trip to photograph the grizzlies at Brooks Falls this autumn.</p>

<p>Very interesting point about DOF between a crop sensor and full frame camera. I didn't know that.</p>

<p>Why do I like f/2.8? Mostly for better low-light performance. I find myself shooting handheld in semi-dark locations a lot, so f/2.8 with Image Stabilization and a good low-light camera like the 5DIII seems like a good combination for me. Hence my recent questions about the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC, although I haven't been able to pull the trigger on a non-Canon lens yet and twisting the barrel the opposite direction to zoom would annoy me. Old dog and new tricks and all that. I've been looking at the Canon 24-70 f/4 recently, but the focus shift issue is turning me off. The only good news is that I enjoy doing the homework and chatting about this stuff with you folks.</p>

<p>Thanks again,<br />Dave</p>

<p>Thanks for the reply.</p>

<p>Yes, for the <strong>same framing</strong> the DoF is the same at about one and one third stops difference (i.e. for DoF F/2.8 on APS-C is "equivalent" to F/4.5 on 135 Format).</p>

<p>Yes, I saw your post about the Tamron Lens - I used one as a trial for a few hours only - the zoom turret was sticky at two points, concerning enough to be a problem for Video: probably that was not a common issue, just that particular lens. The VC was very good and the IQ was good. The different zoom rotation doesn't bother me, probably because I have gear other than Canon anyway.</p>

<p>Also please note that the Tamron has a different <strong>Focus Turret Rotation,</strong> to that of Canon Lenses.</p>

<p>Good luck wit your choices.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Many thanks. Still mulling it over. It's a lot of money and I want to get it right.</p>

Think how much more difficult it is too choose focal lengths in Prime lenses!

 

If you need the range 16-24 for your photography, or you need to be able to go from fairly wide to modest telephoto then the choice is obvious. If you want a zoom lens for convenience, but ca not decide between 16-35 and 24-70 then IT DOES NOT MATTER WHIHC YOU CHOOSE.

 

When I am heading out with a single lens, whether I put a 16-35 or a 24-70 on a camera, once I am shooting I do not feel restricted in any way. Actually I could use nothing more than a prime lens in just about any focal length from 24 to 135 and I would still be happy enough.