Art and Photography

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

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 23rd, 2009 2:52 am
Tags:
None
[OP]
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 3, 2004
10943 posts
419 upvotes
Markham/Mississauga

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

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:
11 replies
Deal Addict
Feb 10, 2007
2219 posts
81 upvotes
Toronto
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
Banned
User avatar
Nov 19, 2005
2985 posts
1 upvote
Markham/Kingston
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.
Toronto Wedding, Fashion & Lifestyle Photographer
www.spencerfu.com
[OP]
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 3, 2004
10943 posts
419 upvotes
Markham/Mississauga
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..
Banned
User avatar
Nov 19, 2005
2985 posts
1 upvote
Markham/Kingston
Just get two full frame bodies. Two 5D's are better than one 5D2. Hah.
Toronto Wedding, Fashion & Lifestyle Photographer
www.spencerfu.com
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 15, 2002
2852 posts
130 upvotes
Markham
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?
Sr. Member
Oct 29, 2005
969 posts
46 upvotes
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
Deal Addict
Feb 10, 2007
2219 posts
81 upvotes
Toronto
lz7j wrote:
Oct 22nd, 2009 9:42 pm
$1250.00
and then hand it over to the DJ... or straight to spencer.. or caterer or venue... lol
Deal Fanatic
Apr 15, 2004
5264 posts
125 upvotes
Nepean
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.
heatware available upon request
Deal Addict
May 20, 2008
1301 posts
71 upvotes
Toronto
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.
[OP]
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 3, 2004
10943 posts
419 upvotes
Markham/Mississauga
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
Member
Jul 1, 2009
342 posts
3 upvotes
Vancouver
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.

Top