Trading my 24-70L for the 16-35L ii, thoughts?

[chris_penn1]

Thanks for taking the time to read my message. I feel as though I am starting to find my "style" of shots I enjoy the most. I have found

the very wide angle shots are the shots I'm drawn to. I had recently started a post about the 12-24 sigma. However, I have read on

here and other research the sigma works best at 16mm and up. With my current 24-70 90% of my shots are at 24mm and most of

the rest are slightly zoomed in. I feel as though I would be more than willing to trade my 24-70 for the 16-35, granted Im able to check

IQ being that I have heard there are some bad copies out there. What are your guys thoughts? Is this a trade that is worth while? It

just seems as though a trade would be my best option being I will get L series build and image quality at 16mm. Thanks,

 

 

Chris

[peter_j2]

<p>Make the trade and look for a Heliopan 82mm ES UV Filter Slim Version from eBay for under $130. I made the switch from a Nikkor 28-70/2.8 to a Nikkor 17-35/2.8 to suit my style of photography when I used to own Nikon a decade ago.</p><div></div>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Lenses are just tools, if you feel that a Philips screw driver will help you get the job done better than a Flat Head screw driver, then by all means get the Philips. However, a Philips screw driver is only limited to Philip screws, while a Flat Head screw driver might be a little more flexible. Not sure what type of camera you have, a full frame or a cropped body, or if your shooting includes paid services, or just personal hobby stuff.<br>

Not saying it can't be done, but it would be pretty hard trying to shoot a wedding with a wide angle zoom compared to a standard zoom lens like the 24-70. If weddings are not your thing, and if wide angle shots give you more satisfaction then go for the 16-35mm. I have both lenses and I would have to say the 24-70 is sharper and a little more contrasty than the 16-35mm, but both lenses are great at what they do. The 16-35mm is definately faster shooting in low light situations in my opinion.<br>

One thing, about 6 years ago I only had a couple of film cameras and a few prosummer lenses. Now I own 3 digital cameras and a series of lenses including 'L' series lenses. I waited until my financial situation improved somewhat and when it did, I upgraded my equipment. Not sure how it happened, but I guess where there is a will there is a way.<br>

My question, is it totally neccessary that you own an expensive wide angle zoom lens right now ? Or can you wait until the funds open up. The 16-35mm f2.8 is a good lens, but it works better with a kit such as the (16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 300) kit. Trading now might cause you to purchase the 24-70 all over again. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I wouldn't hesitate to trade, if that is where your images are taken it would be foolish not to. I once did a quick round the world trip with one body and one lens, it was a 1.3 crop digital, and the lens, a 16-35 MkI.</p>

<p>I wouldn't bother with a $130 filter though, <a href="http://www.lenstip.com/113.4-article-UV_filters_test_Description_of_the_results_and_summary.html">this test</a> shows them to be no better than a Hoya HMC, and that is before going into the filter or no filter war..........</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The two lenses are apples and oranges, mostly. You have to decide on the basis of which is more useful to you for the way you work.</p>

<p>As for filters? Well, the tests linked to are for <em>efficiency as UV filters</em>, not a major concern with digital, really.</p>

<p>The pictures, however, suggest that the better ones, anyway, are about as sharp as no filter at all, but this is fairly subjective with no real effort to find out objective resolution measures in those reviews.</p>

<p>My personal guess is that the optical quality is probably not substantially reduced with any decent protection filter, regardless of make or the manufacturers would be telling us about their tests proving that their rivals were bottle bottoms ( for which see my own modest efforts to provide empirical data on this important question at http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WWb7 )</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<p>Are you shooting with a 36mm sensor, Chris, or one of the smaller varieties?</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>I believe the OP is using a 5D Mk II based on his recent post here: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Y8xn</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I'd hang onto the 24-70, regardless.</p>

[chris_penn1]

I should have mentioned in the post I am shooting with the 5dmk2. I will be doing alot of travel photography with my

setup. I'm torn on getting the sigma 12-24 or trading my 24-70L for the 16-35L. As stated in my other post the sigma

does not seem to be the walk around lens I'm looking for. However, as one contributer to this post has mentioned,

maybe I should hold off until I'm able to own both of the L series lenses. My 24-70 is a fantastic lens, I just need

something a little wider. I'm not sure if this is a blessing nor a curse, some members may be much like me, but when I

know I want something I do what it takes to make it happen. I know I want the best all round wide angle for my 5dmk2

and looking for a way to make it happen. It seems as though I need a lesson on the finer points or patience :-)

[peter_e]

<p>I use the 16-35 a lot, great lens, but I would not trade if for a 24-70. I suggest to save some $ and then get is as a second lens. Do not get the 20 mm, waste of money.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>What you can do is rent the 16-35mm for a while and see if you like it enough to trade-in your 24-70mm. I just purchased a used 16-35mm Mk1 to go on my 5D Mk 1. I held off on purchasing this lens for the longest, because I already have a 10-22mm which I use on my cropped cameras. The 10-22mm is a very good lens and is about as sharp as the 16-35mm, but I hardly ever use it under 14mm which is the equivalent of 22mm on a FF because of the perspective distortion. Preliminary results on my part, show that the 16-35mm handles Perspective Distortion much better than the 10-22, plus it has a max aperture of f2.8. In my opinion wide angle lenses need to be fast, because often while shooting in tight quarters there is not enough available light. This is what I found very annoying with my 10-22mm 3.5/4.5. </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Scott i own both and find that I use the 16-35 II more than the 24-70 on my 5DII (and indeed most of my bodies). That said the 24-70 is a sharper lens from 24-35mm (the 16-35 II seems to be optimized at the wider angles) and is much easier with filters. If money is an issue you should also test the 17-40 f4 which i had before the 16-35 II (as the 16-35 I was not a great lens). The 17-40 f4 is a bargain and if you only use it stopped down (say at F8) then the IQ is very good. The final lens you should consider (although it is very expensive) is the 17 F4 T/S. I recently bought one and this is a fantastic lens. I am not selling my 16-35 II but for landscapes the 17 F4 is amazing.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>I agree with Philip about the 17-40L/. If you shoot mostly stopped down, that may well be your horse. There are many who prioritize lens speed and that's also a valid argument. But it you are shooting in a controlled environment (tripod, MLU, f/4 or smaller etc). then the 17-40L is a very solid performer and well worth considering for a fraction of the cost of a 16-35L II.</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>Get the 16-35.</p>

[chris_penn1]

Thanks guys, I appreciate your responses. I have decided to keep my 24-70 regardless being that I know I will

eventually buy another copy later if I part from my current lens. Im looking for a lens that I can throw on my 5d and

walk around where ever I'm traveling and start shooting. With that said I'm going to just have to man up and save for

the 16-35. What else are tax returns good for right?