Canon 16-35mm f/2,8 or canon 24-70mm f/2,8?

Discussion in 'Accessories' started by pepe_martinez, Dec 27, 2005.

  1. This is Joaquin Peña from Spain and this is my very first thread in
    photo.net.

    Basically, I think it's wiser to spend the money on quality lenses
    which may outlive the bodies they'll go through... but I don't know
    which lense is more convenient of the two above. I like landscape
    photgraphy best, but I need a nice walk-around lense as well. The 24-
    70mm lense has an outstanding MTF chart and therefore it seems it
    would permorm better in my EOS 1Ds (I have the body but no lense
    yet). Besides, it is more versatile ( 70 minus 24 equals 46) than
    the 16-35mm lense (35 minus 16 equals 19). Conversely, the 16-35
    lense is also a quality lense, especially when stopped down.
    However, it is not as sharp as the 24-70 lense ( I don't know how
    noticiable this issue will be on a EOS 1Ds). So far the 24-70 lense
    seems a better choice, but my problem begings when 16mm seems to be
    better than 24mm for lanscapes... (24mm is already good for
    landscapes too)What would yo do? Thank you very much from Spain. I
    wish The Three Wise Men are as good to you as they've been to me ....
     
  2. I can't see how any of us can help you. These are very different lenses with very different uses.

    What are your other lenses? What do you generally shoot?

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  3. Really as stated these are two different lenses, if you need ultra-wide then there is only one choice. Sounds like you have been handed a 1Ds, and must be very excited to start using it.

    If I had to choose between the two I would take the 24-70mm f/2.8. It's fast and while a better general purpose lens it's still great for landscapes. This is digital, so you can always stitch a couple of shots together to make a great panoramic. That just requires learning a little technique and some software. So you're missing some convenience by not having the wider lens, but not so much capability.

    Oh and your versatility measurement based on the magnitude of the focal range is really pretty useless. For example 16-24mm = 8mm range quite useful; 200mm-208mm = 8mm, totally insignificant. You can't use the absolute value; if you really must think of it this way it is better to look at the range as a percentage of the lower limit of the range.

    Enjoy!
     
  4. they are both great lenses and It is worth to own both. in any case the 24-70 is not really a 'walk-around'... it's big and heavy. As a walk-around the 16-35 it's probably better but if you are gonna use them on a 1Ds body the 24-70 is the way to go imho especially if you do landscapes.
     
  5. Mr. Yakim Peled

    Replacing my coolpix 5700 was out of my plans, but the EOS 1Ds came to me and I just took the chance. That's why I have no lenses yet. The canon EF 50mm 1,4 USM lense is the only one which I am sure of. Landscapes is what I like shooting most. The question is... What will I be missing more... the extra sharpness of the 24-70mm lense or the extra angle coverage of the 16-35mm?... Thanks Yakin for asking
     
  6. The 24-70 may be sharper, but it will not take sharp photos between 16-23mm, right?

    24mm is the "traditional" wide angle for landscape shooting, and satisfies most people. However, if you like to shoot below 24mm, why not try the 20mm?

    Most people with your question will buy both lenses, to cater for all shooting opportunities.
     
  7. *sigh*

    It's like deciding between a Ferrari and a Land Rover: two completely different things with completely different uses.
     
  8. Although I agree with the previous posters that these lenses are really like apples and oranges, I will go out on a limb and suggest the 24-70mm. Why? The 16-35mm will limit you to wide angle use whereas the 24-70mm will give you some short telephoto use as well which I tend to use a lot for landsapes. In fact, I might even suggest a third alternative...the 24-105mm IS.

    B.
     
  9. >> Landscapes is what I like shooting most.

    Then the 16-35/2.8 will probably be a better choice. Also consider the 17-40/4. As you generally shoot landscapes stopped down, the 1 stop difference becomes a moot point.

    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  10. I had the same dilemma for the past few months until yesterday... This is what I currently have:

    Canon 20D
    Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS
    Canon EF 50 f/1.8

    I also had a big use for wide angle and had to choose between the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 24-70 f/2.8.

    I decided that I'm alfready covered better in the longer focal area than in the shorter so I decided on the 16-35. It should be in a UPS truck as I type this. I then have 16-35 :: 50 :: 70-200. This should do for now.

    But I noticed that you wrote that the 24-70 is a sharper lens than the 16-35... is this true? I know that many are dissing the 16-35 due to softness while using it at 2.8. But 2.8 is not the only aperture setting... it's important to not always use it wide open.
     

Share This Page