16-35 s.8L VS 24-70 2.8L

[williamsquire]

<p>Hello there,</p>

<p>I am upgrading my kit to a 5D mark II and am still debating on a lens. It's between 16-35 2.8L VS 24-70 2.8L. My bread and butter is Portraits and Weddings but I love landscape photography as well. Which lens do you prefer and if you have pro and cons for both that is appreciated.<br>

Also if there is an entirely different lens you have in mind I am open to suggestions.<br>

Thanks for your time!</p>

<p>Billy</p>

[mbjohnson]

<p>I have both and find them both to be very excellent but not really for the same use. I like the wider angle when I am shooting Landscapes and Cars but the 24-70 is great for people and more general walk around use. My camera is a 7D so I have the crop that changes it a little bit but the comparison is still valid I think.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Well, 16-35mm is useless for portraits -- way too short, though at the long end it can be useful for groups. 24-70mm is fine for weddings and okay (at the long end) for portraits, but still a bit short for close-ups. Canon's best close-up portrait lens is probably the 135mm f/2L.</p>

<p>If you're only going to have one lens, the 24-70mm f/2.8L or the 24-105mm f/4L IS are the most generally-useful choices, depending on whether you have a greater need for f/2.8 or the extra 35mm of reach. If you can buy two lenses, then I'd suggest the 24-70mm and either the 135mm f/2L or one of the 70-200mm L-series zooms (f/4 or f/2.8, with IS or not, depending on your needs and budget). If you really need to go wider than 24mm, the 16-35mm f/2.8L and the 17-40mm f/4L are both good choices.</p>

<p>All this assumes that you don't mind carrying something about the size and weight of a brick attached to your camera. If weight is a concern, the 24-105mm is much smaller and lighter than the 24-70mm, and the 70-200mm f/4 similarly is smaller and lighter than the 70-200mm f/2.8. For the ultra-wides, the difference is less critical; the 16-35mm is certainly larger and heavier than the 17-40mm, but not radically so.</p>

<p>The fairly inexpensive Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM is probably also worth picking up for those occasions when you need to shoot in near-darkness without a flash.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>For your bread and butter the 24-70 first. Once that has paid the bills get a 17 or 24 TS-E, they are quantum leaps better than the 16-35 zoom for serious landscape images.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>It seems kind of a strange question: there's a <em>gulf</em> of difference in focal lengths here.</p>

<p>Anyway, with full frame and weddings: get the 24-70 first.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Two different tools ESPECIALLY on a FF sensor. I have both and love them.</p>

<p>Really, one cannot pick one over the other -- except note this: 24mm is very wide on a 5D.</p>

[dan_south]

Craig is right. The 16-35 is not a portrait lens unless you want to distort people's features badly. It's a very sharp lens

and it has it's uses.

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>My bread and butter is Portraits and Weddings...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What lenses do you use for your portraits and weddings? What lenses do you own and would like to get rid of? This information maybe useful to us to recommend something, right?</p>

[joe_fikes]

<p>Apples. Oranges. I've had great results shooting people and general subjects with a 24-105 L. It would be my first choice for weddings and portraits. Everything I've heard suggests that it performs very similarly to the 24-70 - each lens having its own advantages. The 16-35, however, is a completely different animal and can be a VERY wide lens on a full-frame camera. At 16mm you can see your ears, the soles of your feet, and the back of your head. Well, almost. I use the 24-105 all the time for landscapes. So unless you need a really wide field-of-view, I'd hold off on the 16-35 until later.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

[williamsquire]

<p>Thanks for the info. I think I will go for the 24-70 but now the 24-105 has my attention! WHy dont they just make the 24-105 2.8 with IS. I know it would end the 24-70 but they would stop confusing customers and make quicker sales!</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The likely reason the 24-105 is an F4 lens is that 24-105 is harder to make than the 24-70 as it goes from retrofocus to telefocus. Thus it is more optically compromised than the 24-70. I replaced my 24-105 with the 24-70 a few years ago and do not regret it. Many people own both as the 24-105 is more compact and has IS making it a useful walk around lens.<br>

I agree with all the other comments (I own both the 24-70 and 16-35 II) and would suggest you also look at getting an 85 F1.8 as this is a much better portrait lens than the 24-70 and relatively cheap. The 16-35 is a good lens but not a great lens - it is best at wide angles ( the 24-70 is sharper between 24mm and 35mm - especially wide open).</p>