Canon 16-35mm F2.8L II or Canon 24-70mm F2.8L

[CSAgent]

Alright so I finally ditched the 1.6x sensor and is now playing in the full frame league. ;)

Need trusty walk-around lens - saving my primes for the studio.

Have narrowed it down to 16-35mm F2.8L II or the 24-70 F2.8L.

Gave thoughts to the 24-105L F4 IS too, but prefer the 2.8... can anyone really say no to F2.8? :D

For those who have owned those lens or own all three, which is most useful and most sharpest? Please, owners or users only - no online reviews or speculations. If you haven't touched it and snapped with it, I don't wanna hear it! :)

Ryan's recommended me the 16-35 F2.8L II but at just 35mm, I'm going to miss that extra reach the 24-70mm offers.

Using this for weddings, portraits and general purpose. Think family gatherings, birthdays. I got a 70-200 F2.8L IS for stalking people already...:lol:

[ryan_lau100]

the 16-35 :twisted:

if we ever end up shooting a wedding together you can try it out!

the 16-35mk2 is sweet man... both i find are less sharp than the 24-70 but thats to be expected because of the UWA but i was astonished at the difference between the mk1 and mk2... the mk2 there is a lot less distortion and not nearly as soft. if i had a chance again i would have gone 16-35 instead and have the 70-200 or longer prime on my other body. esp with the 20+MP you have its easy to crop in if its your last resort however if you are against a wall you are screwed... ive had this happen once or twice.

i must admit though after calibration my 24-70 is sickly sharp but i find its TOO contrasty... ive had to reduce the contrast applied in camera.

next time we meet up you can play with it some more.

oh another reason i like the 16-35 is bc im gunning for the 7d later and having 16 on a crop is still ok but 24 makes it way too long.

just my 0.02 although ur probably sick of hearing this after last sunday lol

[sfu_engineer]

I don't know if I should comment since I do not use either of these lens but my assistant owns both the 24-70mm and the 16-35mm and now almost exclusively uses the 16-35mm when we photograph weddings together.

He only uses one camera body so it's sort of tough for him being limited to only 16-35mm range. But he swears its sharper and more of an interesting focal range to shoot with. It's perfect for me as I own more "boring" primes and find that our combination of shots works out great.

When we talk about the 24-70mm he says it's good except for the huge size and weight and prefers using just the 16-35mm and a 85mm at weddings.

Personally I find F2.8 too limiting and that I still enjoy shooting with primes more.

[CSAgent]

I hear ya Spence, I like my 2 primes too. I only wish I had as many bodies as I do primes and that's the problem. In fast moving situations there's not enough time for me I find to swap out lens. Primes are light to carry and extremely sharp. So that's why I need a general purpose lens..

[sfu_engineer]

Just get two full frame bodies. Two 5D's are better than one 5D2. Hah.

[SENSEI]

Matt,

I think you're coming from a 40D and 17-55 2.8?

I was in a similar situation couple of years back...ended up going with the 24-70 2.8. It will feel EXACTLY like your 17-55 setup.

If you already have the 70-200 2.8IS, it's the perfect compliment to have both.

But it depends on your shooting style, if you shoot weddings with a second and you have 4 bodies between the 2 of you, you can afford to give up some range for quality in primes. If you shoot solo, I don't think there enough range in the 16-35 by itself.

Your other lenses will also dictate the choice. For example, if you have a 50L, 85L, I don't know if I'd suggest the 24-70 due to redundancy.

Personally, I can't live without the 24-70 and weight really isn't an issue for me. I'll shoot the primes when needed, but I prefer the versatility of a zoom for my style of shooting.

There's rumor of a new 24-70 II with IS, so maybe hang on for that?

[lz7j]

I've owned the 24-70L 5 times and sold it each time. I've owned my 16-35Lii since introduction and have never thought of letting it go. 16-35L is my go to lens for reception dancing and wide angle scenery shots.

16-35L on 1 body, 70-200L IS on the other. Perfect Zoom combo! Add a 50L and you're set!

Buuuut, if you still want a 24-70L, I'll sell you my super sharp copy (barely used/back-up - it's 10/10 condition, even the hood). UX date code, rfd buddy (for you only) special: $1250.00

[ryan_lau100]

$1250.00

and then hand it over to the DJ... or straight to spencer.. or caterer or venue... lol

[bpopd]

Like what SENSEI said,
If you already have preference for the 17-55IS on 1.6x, then the logical choice would be to get the 24-70 f/2.8 for full frame. Did you have a 10-22 while on the 40D? If you prefered the 10-22 more on your 40D than your 17-55, then go for the 16-35mm.

All depends what you prefer!

Hope I helped.

[Borbor]

for the walk around? 24-70

16-35 is UWA on a FF. 24-70 is what's on mine the most when I used to still carry it outside with me. I've went 80mm prime since then :D

I like my 14-24 too, but man you gotta get right in there to make good use of it. 24-70 is still wide on the 24 and 70 is long enough to isolate when you need to.

[CSAgent]

Great suggestions all around, I think I'm leaning towards the 24-70 too after reading what all of your thoughts are. I have a 50mm F1.4 on it at the moment, it's been great after taking a test drive at a birthday party tonight with a lot of willing models. (Girlfriend's post-university class with a big girl to guy ratio...haha ;))

I had a EF-S 10-22mm that I quickly got rid of to a friend when he knew I was upgrading the body. I won't miss it too much as I seldom used it, it wasn't very practical for events and weddings. Odd scene here and there (like the ceremony where everyone is at a stand still for example) but other than that, kept it in the bag. I used to love taking landscapes for fun, but that got boring real fast - it also doesn't pay the bills unless I can sell them to big time nature magazines..heh.

I loved my 17-55 F2.8 IS, I was sad to let it go. It served me very well in the year or two I've had it for. (Thanks cy! It's gone to another owner now..)

I think the 24-70 will be my go to lens for now, if I don't like it I can always get rid of it and get the 16-35. Ideally I'd like to get both! :twisted: But, working on some projects to expand my tenure into photography where funds are needed so can't afford to get both...yet. ;)

Thanks all for the input!

Side note, like Ryan I wanna get the 7D eventually too to replace my XSi back up, I may just get the 17-55 again if that's the case for it - it's a bloody great lens! :D

[Mprezd]

For me the 24-70 hands down. Although I have shot a wedding with just a 135 before - good to get creative sometimes. The 16-35 is just too wide for my liking. I have seen other people shoot with them and often felt they were getting too close to the wedding party - having that extra reach is nice so you don't feel like you are in everyone else's way.

The 24-105 was nice on my 40d, but I hate it on the 5d mkii. It is all distorted and often tapers.