reposting my question lens 24/70 or 16/35

[korys_ins]

I'm Considering selling my 17/85 and replace it with an L lens I'm

looking at 24/70 or 16/35 currently have the 20D and 50 1.4 and 580

flash the new lens will be my main lens will be using it taking

family picture 70% indoor 30% out door in the future I will also be

purchasing the 70/200 2.8 IS. I have read some posted notes stating

the ultra wide lens is not a good idea with a camera with on 1.6

Factor I don?t understand? Can any one explain it? Sorry I reposted

it with the right lens

[steve torelli]

John, IMHO either of your choices would be fine, depending on whether you wanted the wider angle of the 16-35 or the more "normal" FL of the 24-70. I own the 24-70 and the 70-200, if you went with that, you would have several options at the wide end. The 16-35 you mentioned, the Canon 17-40, one of the wide primes, the 10-20 EF-S or a third party lens like the Tokina 12-24 which is supposed to be pretty good from what I've read. I don't know where you read that an ultra wide on a 1.6 cropped sensor camera is a problem. They may cause some vignetting on a full frame sensor but should be less of a problem on the 20D. Good Luck.

[bens]

john, it all depends how wide an angle you want. because of the 1.6 factor, images from wide angle lenses are more cramped than on film. a 16mm lens gives a field of view moreakin to 25mm.

 

i've got a 24/2.8 canon prime, a 20-40 tamron, a 28-75 tamron. from my point of view, the 28-75 is not quite enough for group shots indoors. the 24 is acceptable for 95% of what I do, and does not have as much distortion from wide angle as the 20, which IS better for field of view.

 

so what do you do? well, you could consider is a third-arty lens, the sigma 18-50/2.8, good things are said about it, and it gives you the most options on a zoom that includes a serious wide angle.

 

people swear by the canon 17-40 btw, but its fastest aperture is f.4, which limits you somewhat indoors without a flash.

 

you can also go third party, pick up a sigma 24-70 macro (people have said stellar things about it), and then a wide angle prime, like the tokina 17/3.5, which gets decent reviews, and still have money left over from what you would have spent on your canon zooms if my math is correct.

[derek_linney]

John, first ask yourself why you want to change: What is it about the 17-85 that doesn't meet your needs? If you find yourself often wanting to shoot at a wider aperture and therefore need f2.8 or you want higher image quality then either of the lenses 16-35 or 24-70 will help. Then ask yourself when you are using your 17-85 where do you use it most - at 17, at 35/40, at 50/60 or at 85? - that will tell you whether the 16-35 or 24-70 will more closely match your shooting needs.

[kemmerichphoto]

I have the 24-70 and the 16-35 and I have great results with both of them. I also owned the 17-40 and I found it to be soft and the focus always searching with slowed me down. For what is best for you on lenses do you need wide angle or more of a telephoto. I would think the 16-35 and included with your 50mm and then adding the 70-200 sounds like a pretty good combination.

[brideday]

I recommended the 17-40L to a Canon 20d owner and he loves it. It costs around $600 and is built great, sharp and can be a great all around lens.

[oceanphysics]

I don't know who told you the nonsense about ultrawides not being good with small sensors. Actually, they're essential. With the 24-70 you will have no real wide angle capability at all.

 

For general shooting on a 1.6 sensor camera, a 16-35 and 70-200 would be an ideal setup. A 24-70 and 70-200 would be a very limited one. It's not even a contest.

[wickerman_wickerman1]

I have a 20d and just bought the 24-70l, i find it great, i am now hoping to buy the 70-200 2.8l and i hope that is great too.

 

I listened to all these argument about being able to buy several lens's for the same money as these supreme expensive zooms etc etc. And you know what--you will end up lugging loads of kit around--having to change len's in the middle of no where just for one shot--having dust and all crap getting into your camera everytime you change.

 

It's obvious that these 2 len's are the bee's knees and will cover 99% of all situations. they may cost a lot but you wont be continually cleaning your sensor or spending hours doctoring your pics cause of lens dust---just stick to the two and be happy