EF16-35 vs. EF24-105 on 7D

[van_johnson1]

<p>I just started using a Canon 7D which came with a 28-135 kit lens which I sold. I recently purchased the 70-200 2.8 II and now I'm looking to get I'm thinking the 24-105 or 16-35. Need a walk around lens I know if I go with the 16-35 I'll be missing a range for a bit but I thought I could get say a 50mm somtime down the road. With the 24-105 I don't feel like I have a great landscape lens on the APS-C format but I like the IS on the lens. Do you folks think the 16-35 will work OK for the time being as a walk around lens if I go that direction? I can't have both and I want to stay with lens that perhaps I may use use and FF body in the future.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I'd go for the 16-35/2.8 L. Likely far superior to the 24-105 in image quality. Add a 50/1.8 for less than a $100 and you're set.</p>

<p>My nephew has the 7D, 16-35 II, and 50/1.4 and looking to add one of the 70-200's later.</p>

<p>If you are serious about landscape photography and the possibility of full frame down the road then definitely the 16-35. However, I highly recommended to my nephew, and I will recommend to you as well, that you consider a used version II, a used version I, or way cheaper still, a used Canon EF 17-35mm f2.8 L. You won't be able to see a significant difference between all three.</p>

<p>I am currently doing everything I can to steer him away from the incredibly overprieced-for-what-it-does 70-200/2.8 L IS II. However he ignored me and got the 16-35/II new, and he will likely ignore me on the big zoom too. I'm too late for you on the big zoom, and yes I know you will likely ignore me on the 17-35 too! I simply have to try to save people money so that they can spend it on something more deserving of it. This coming from someone who just bought a 17 TS-E, however I did by it used and saved about $800 USD!</p>

<p>P.S. Calling the 16-35 a walk-around lens is a bit of a misnomer....do you know how big it is?! You certainly don't want to bang it on anything either! Have fun!</p>

[zml]

<p>Van:<br>

It depends where exactly do you "walk around" and what your photographic intrerests are. Take a look at your focal length usage and then decide. And don't be afraid of not being "covered" in all focal lengths, just get the best lens you can afford in the focal length range you use the most. <br>

FWIW, even though I vastly prefer the IQ offered by the 16-35/2.8 II over that of my 24-105/4, the latter is practically glued to a FF body...<br>

IS is nice to have but not required, BTW.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Have you looked at the EF-S 17-55 f2.8IS? If you get a FF body later then just sell it, if, at that time, you want to.</p>

[oscar_van_der_velde]

<p>John Crowe wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>P.S. Calling the 16-35 a walk-around lens is a bit of a misnomer....do you know how big it is?! You certainly don't want to bang it on anything either!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's 11.1 cm, only 0.5 cm larger than the EF 24-105mm f/4L and 50 grams lighter. I'm sure people walk around with 70-200mm lenses of 17 cm! Alternatively you could take three small EF primes for the same weight but you'll be walking less and swapping more. You've got to walk around with something, no? ;) "Walk-around" means versatility in one lens to most, not so much the size.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>If you were intending to stick with your 7D, Van, I'd recommend that you get an EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. But, since you're planning to move to full frame, getting an EF lens is prudent (though if you were to get a used 17-55, you could sell it for what you paid for it once you go full frame).</p>

<p>When I'm walking about with a single lens (on one of my full frame bodies), it's either my 24-105 or 70-200/4 L IS. Which one I take depends on my intended subject matter. If I'm with my young children, I tend to take the telephoto zoom; the standard zoom serves more for general purposes.</p>

<p>While I find 24mm to be amply wide enough on my 5DII or 1V, it wouldn't be so for me on a crop body. So if I were in your situation, I'd let focal length range be the determinant of which lens to get: 16-35 if I needed wider angles, and 24-105 if not. Don't be fooled by the 24-105 naysayers, many of whom have never used the lens; it's a very fine general purpose zoom.</p>

<p> </p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I own a 24-105 and it's great. However, you'll find yourself needing a wider view on a cropped sensor body.<br>

My 24-105 review is here:</p>

<p>slidescanning123.com/canon-lens-reviews/</p>

[pto189]

<p>Buy the 16-35 f2.8 II now. When you decide to add or switch to full frame, you can always buy the 5D II with 24-105 f4 as kit lens. You then have a good set of lenses for both 7D and 5D II.</p>

[van_johnson1]

<p>I'll be sticking with the 7D for a while and my interest's are mostly nature or out doors if you prefer. I hunt both birds and big game North American and I thought that using the 16-35 would provide a better landscape lens for those times and when traveling I was thinking that it would be nice for say inside a old church in in Costa Rica (just a example). Ultimatley down the road it would be:<br>

16-35 or 24-105?<br>

70-200<br>

400 2.8</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Van,</p>

<p>Get the lenses that work best with the gear you have now, much of the 16-35's capabilities will be wasted on the 7D whereas the 17-55 will fill your current needs far better, with better functionality with both the focal length and IS.</p>

<p>If, however, you see yourself getting the FF in under a year then I'd say get the 16-35.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>You like capturing great expanses of a room but cannot step back any further? 16-35/2.8 II for future full frame considerations. The corners are an improvement over the first version. I've tried both before buying the version II for the 5D and 1Ds II.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Van:</p>

<p>If I were using primarily a 1.6x crop camera, I'd buy the 17-55/2.8 IS without hesitation. Even if you buy a full frame camera in the future, this will continue to be a great lens paired with the 7D.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If you are thinking of a comparison between those two lenses, you <em>really</em> need to consider the excellent EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS as well. By all accounts it is a better option in many ways on a cropped sensor camera. It offers:</p>

<ul>

<li>excellent image quality that arguably is as good or better than that from the two L alternatives on a cropped sensor camera.</li>

<li>a competitive price - a bit lower perhaps.</li>

<li>quite decent build quality.</li>

<li>f/2.8</li>

<li>image stabilization</li>

<li>a focal length range that is tailored to cropped sensor shooters.</li>

</ul>

<p>A L lens is not always the best choice.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I think that the only real "walkaround" lens for the APS-C format is the EF-S 15-85mm IS. It's not small compared to a prime lens, but it's a heck of a lot less mass and bulk than many lenses listed above, which, IMHO, are really better suited for use on the 35mm-sensor cameras for which they were designed.<br /> If you are sure (but why?) that you're going to "fool frame" ONLY then having little wide angle to speak of on your camera could be tolerated for a time, I suppose.<br /> However, like many others, I still shoot with my two APS-C cameras as well as with my 35mm-sensor 5D. The older EF-S 17-85mm IS on the former, and the 24-105mm IS on the latter. There are hardly handier lenses than these, each in their own sphere. I've even toyed with upgrading to a 7D for my APS-C shooting (such as telephoto work). They are different formats, not one a limited or expanded version of the other.</p>

<p>If I did get a new 7D, I'd probably get the 15-85 too.</p>

[van_johnson1]

<p>My stress levels going up thinking about this :) the 17-55 looks pretty tempting along with the 17-85 but I'm still inclined to lean towards the "L" glass for the image quality and perhaps hold it's value a bit better in the long run. I tend to stay away of buying used off Ebay or craigslist on a high ticket item like this just to save the risk of getting a dog.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Van, I wouldn't be too put off by the EF-S 17-55's lack of "L" designation. It's my understanding that the IQ of the 17-55 on crop is comparable to that of the 24-70/2.8 L on full frame, which is a fine combination indeed. And while the EF-S may not have the L's build quality, this is more than made up for by the fact that it has IS. If I had a crop body, there's no doubt that I'd get a 17-55.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I see <em>way </em>more 24-70's than 17-55's listed on craigslist, which might suggest that the L is more prone to "copy variation." It also might suggest that most people value IS over build quality.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I have a 7D, and I also have the 24-105 and the 70-200, they're both fine lenses. I filled in the wide gap with a Sigma 10-20 f/3.5. Canon makes a 10-22 that would work as well.</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>IT seems that you might be overlooking a couple of other options. Both the 16-35 and the 24-105 are great lenses. However, if you are looking for something with the highest IQ there are a couple of other options. As mentioned there is the 17-55 2.8 for EFS lenses.</p>

<p>If you are mainly going to be outside in good light, don't overlook the 17-40 F4. It is much cheaper than the 16-35 with very similar IQ.</p>

<p>Finally, you also have a few prime options in there (35mm on 1.6x cameras are very popular). While the 35L is much more expensive than any other lens mentioned, theres also a very good 35 F2. For me personally, my 50mm prime is on my camera whenever I want to just walk around somewhere. (sorry to add even more to think about into the mix... moral of the story, there are LOTS of great options, you need to be able to make the choice of what works best for you)</p>

<p>You might even want to rent them for a while to discover which you like best.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<p>It's a brilliant lens but the 17-55 is a better match. That said, if you're a slave to marketing campaigns, then go ahead with the L :)</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I thought that using <strong>the 16-35 would provide a better landscape lens </strong>Ultimatley down the road it would be:<br />16-35 or 24-105?<br />70-200<br />400 2.8</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In that lens list, there is nothing really wide. For landscapes I like access to a wider lens, wider than 16 on APS-C – YMMV. So IMO, ultimately, down the road, to that lens list you’d be better <strong>adding</strong> a 5D type body (aka “Full Frame”). But you state that you will be sticking with a 7D for a while – I think this is more a conundrum for you than what lens to get - I think you need to think this part through, more closely.</p>

<p>The EF16 to 35F/2.8L MkII is the most used zoom on my APS-C bodies. I use it as my “walkaround lens”<br>

I have the 16 to 35 BECAUSE I purposely defined and built a dual format DSLR kit.<br>

If I had only a 7D (or all APS-C cameras) I would have bought the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM,<strong><em> but I also would have bought a wider zoom.</em></strong></p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[van_johnson1]

<p>The EF16 to 35F/2.8L MkII is the most used zoom on my APS-C bodies. I use it as my “walkaround lens” <strong>I'm thinking like you that for now this will work for my walk around lens on the APS-C and when/if I choose to get FF I'll have it. I know it won't be the greatest at landscapes but certainly better then the 24-105. Like I said though the IS is pretty sweet on the 24-105 just feel like I need more lower range then higher which I have with the 70-200.</strong><br>

I too if I keep the 7D as my only camera will propably get as suggest above the 10-22 or somthing along those lines. My gap if I deciede I need it would be in 40 to 70 so I thought a fast 50mm maybe. But as sombody mention earlier in that range I can walk a bit closer or move back some.<br>

I was thinking with the 16 -35 it would be great for inside shots while on vacation and just walking around town</p>

[van_johnson1]

<p>Oh by the way thanks for all the great suggestions since this photography think is a bit new to me I'm like a sponge asorbing all the "thumbs up and downs" with each choice. Lot's to think about that's for sure.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Not sure if anyone mentioned the large filter size of the 16-35. That is what really turns me off on this lens ( not to mention its about $1700 now ) Honestly you may get more for your money with a 17-40 + a good fast prime. I have used the 16-35 and its really nice but the 17-40 is cheaper, smaller and lighter and uses the same filter size as most other Canon zooms ( 24-70,105, 70-200 2.8 ) Just something to consider.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

There is a lot that is not ideal about this lens for cropped sensor shooters. Yes, it is a fine ultra-wide zoom on full frame for

those who shoot low light subjects wide open or nearly so. For that it probably cannot be beat.

 

But on a cropped sensor body for more general use including landscape? Someone may be letting L envy get the

better of him! :-)

 

Ask this question. If both the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS had red rings, which would you prefer?

 

Image quality: Largely the same, though the 17-55 may measure a bit better in some ways on crop.

Focal length range: 16-35mm vs. 17-55mm.

Maximum aperture: f/2.8 on both.

Image stabilization: yes on one, no on the other.

Build quality: both are very good, the 16-35 slightly better.

Cost: the less versatile lens costs more.

 

The filter issue is not irrelevant. Several of the L zooms use 77mm diameter filter threads - this is regarded as a

somewhat standard filter size for these lenses. The 16-35 uses a larger, non-standard and more expensive 82mm

filter, and because you are dealing with a wide angle lens using an adapter with a 77mm filter isn't likely to work well.

 

Dan

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I'm thinking like you that for now this will work for my walk around lens on the APS-C and when/if I choose to get FF I'll have it. </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

From what you have written you are not thinking like me.<br>

I bought the 16 to 35MkII BECAUSE I owned a 5D and BECAUSE it fitted into a dual format kit.<br>

As a RESULT of that purchase the 16 to 35MkII THEN BECOMES my walkabout lens on my APS-C cameras BECAUSE I will NOT buy any EF-S lens: so the 16 to 35 suffices for my needs.</p>

<p>The point is, you are predicating the purchase upon: “when/if I choose to get FF”.</p>

<p>That’s why I encouraged you to decide that, first.</p>

<p>IMO if you decide to only keep the 7D (or an exclusive APS-C kit) you will still have the 16 to 35 and that is not the better of the two lenses for that purpose – which is also what I wrote: <em>“</em><em>If I had only a 7D (or all APS-C cameras) I would have bought the EF-S 17 to 55F/2.8 IS USM</em>”</p>

<p>WW</p>