24-70 0r 16-35 or something else?

T

torque22

Messages
684
Edit My Images
No
I recently sold my 24-70 f4 and 16-35 f4 and a few other bits, well nearly everything lol.
I still have the:
EF 100 2.8L macro
EF 70-200 2.8L IS II
EF 85 1.4 L
which all make wonderful portrait lenses, especially the 85.

I use a full frame camera and can only afford one lens to replace the two I sold and i want f/2.8 at least.

I'm thinking of doing engagement shoots, family groups, family events, street/urban photography and maybe studio.

The short list is:
16-35 2.8L III
24-70 2.8L II
35L or 50L

the primes probably wont be flexible enough??
I like the impact wide angles can give,
and to my shame I don't think 24-70 has ever really impressed me.

Any thoughts???
 
I *think* you may have answered your own question:

torque22 said:
the primes probably wont be flexible enough??
I like the impact wide angles can give,
and to my shame I don't think 24-70 has ever really impressed me.
Click to expand...

So, that's the primes ruled out and the 24-70 ruled out too. And you like wide angles.... that sounds a lot like the 16-35, or am I missing something?
 
Boots said:
I *think* you may have answered your own question:



So, that's the primes ruled out and the 24-70 ruled out too. And you like wide angles.... that sounds a lot like the 16-35, or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Ha Ha
the ?? at the end of my statement about the primes was to invite comments to the contrary.
the 24-70 comment was intended to invited some members to post images taken with the 24-70 to prove me wrong
I just thought talking about it and hearing different perspective's would help me figure out which route to go.
 
SFTPhotography said:
I heard in Canon land the 16-35 F4 is better than the 16-35 2.8....
Click to expand...

mk iii may be perfectly fine. But what is the point of f/2.8 on UWA outside of a few very limited scenarios? Little. You are much better of getting the f/1.4 primes in that case. f/4 zoom is enough.
I'd say Canon 24-70mm II is OK but not worth the price and may be quite lacking in features vs more modern alternatives. You would be right to expect IS on it. In that case you have to look at Tamron. But to be fair I would find it difficult to do a lot of work without one.

SFTPhotography said:
Do Canon make a 20mm F1.8.
Click to expand...

Old rubbish. Maybe not as bad but not worth the attention. Sigma and L II primes are about the only options.

torque22 said:
i would just prefer faster glass and more bokeh lol
Click to expand...

There is not much bokeh under 50mm and over f/1.4
 
Given how this thread has gone and the work intended, I'd look for a pair of used Sigma ART 35 f1.4 and 24 f1.4 lenses. The only downside is size and a need to change frequently. Image quality will kill any of those zooms.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Given how this thread has gone and the work intended, I'd look for a pair of used Sigma ART 35 f1.4 and 24 f1.4 lenses. The only downside is size and a need to change frequently. Image quality will kill any of those zooms.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that. The sigma ART primes are highly impressive lenses. Loved the 24, 35 and 50 I had.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
mk iii may be perfectly fine. But what is the point of f/2.8 on UWA outside of a few very limited scenarios? Little. You are much better of getting the f/1.4 primes in that case. f/4 zoom is enough.
I'd say Canon 24-70mm II is OK but not worth the price and may be quite lacking in features vs more modern alternatives. You would be right to expect IS on it. In that case you have to look at Tamron. But to be fair I would find it difficult to do a lot of work without one.



Old rubbish. Maybe not as bad but not worth the attention. Sigma and L II primes are about the only options.



There is not much bokeh under 50mm and over f/1.4
Click to expand...
I imagine astro being a motivator for the f 2.8 model. If its landscape and the F4 version is good yes F4.

I've not owned a Canon system so the finer points of detail allude me with their range
 
SFTPhotography said:
I imagine astro being a motivator for the f 2.8 model. If its landscape and the F4 version is good yes F4.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. You can also use it in dark weddings or for photojournalism. But then you quickly see the appeal of much faster primes. The latest best sensors can actually behave very reasonably with a high quality 16mm f/4 lens for astro if that is only an occasional use. For EF mount we are probably looking at the 1DX mkII - iii.
 
Besides don't overlook the cheapo 50mm STM prime. It performs superbly stopped down (22MP f/2.8-4, 50MP - f/5.6) from corner to corner and beats any zoom. I am sure the Sigma is better but only if you need to shoot wider apertures.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
mk iii may be perfectly fine. But what is the point of f/2.8 on UWA outside of a few very limited scenarios?
I would like fast glass for low light conditions.

You are much better of getting the f/1.4 primes in that case.
£££ and not flexible but I would love to work towards this one day.

f/4 zoom is enough.
I'd say Canon 24-70mm II is OK but not worth the price and may be quite lacking in features vs more modern alternatives. You would be right to expect IS on it. In that case you have to look at Tamron. But to be fair I would find it difficult to do a lot of work without one. ...my head says 24-70 and my heart says 16-35



There is not much bokeh under 50mm and over f/1.4...the bokeh was more related to the 24-70
Click to expand...
 
ancient_mariner said:
Given how this thread has gone and the work intended, I'd look for a pair of used Sigma ART 35 f1.4 and 24 f1.4 lenses. The only downside is size and a need to change frequently. Image quality will kill any of those zooms.
Click to expand...
Primes = best image quality and faster glass but its flexibility that would be an issue for me.
I would like to work with primes more ...one day
 
torque22 said:
Primes = best image quality and faster glass but its flexibility that would be an issue for me.
I would like to work with primes more ...one day
Click to expand...
It's curious, but I find myself working with primes more and more on my regular photographic situations of country walks, though when I go on holiday I reach for the 24-105 because I know it will do everything acceptably. If you were a Sony user I'd say the 24-105 would be ideal, but I don't think the Canon sensor would be able to cope.
 
If you're doing events, weddings and engagements, then I'd go for the 24-70 f2.8. It's all round versatility is going to be the most useful thing to have. The 16-35 is too wide for those sorts of shots and although you could use it for the odd interior-church shot, it's not that useful to only have that one lens.
The Canon 24-70 f2.8 Mk2 is a very good lens. Not sure what you have against it. But you could look at the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Art lens. Newer and perhaps sharper.
Not to mention that the Sigma also has optical stabilisation. https://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lens-item/24-70mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm/
What camera body is it going on?
 
ancient_mariner said:
... I'd say the 24-105 would be ideal, but I don't think the Canon sensor would be able to cope.
Click to expand...
That's an odd statement. Are you suggesting the Canon sensor wouldn't cope with an f4 lens?
The 24-105L from Canon is a very good lens, the Mk2 version is even better and the RF version is better again.
It is a very versatile focal range, but for the OP's intended usage, f4 wouldn't really be ideally suited.
 
I think the 24-70 would be a much more versatile focal range than a 16-35 for the sort of photography you specified ( engagement shoots, family groups, family events, street/urban photography and maybe studio), unless you're planning something of a rather unique wide-angled look to your shots?
 
ABTog said:
That's an odd statement. Are you suggesting the Canon sensor wouldn't cope with an f4 lens?
The 24-105L from Canon is a very good lens, the Mk2 version is even better and the RF version is better again.
It is a very versatile focal range, but for the OP's intended usage, f4 wouldn't really be ideally suited.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that with an f4 max aperture a canon DSLR sensor might struggle a bit with noise and dynamic range if the ISO has to be ramped up to compensate. Another reason why a couple of fast primes might be better.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I was thinking that with an f4 max aperture a canon DSLR sensor might struggle a bit with noise and dynamic range if the ISO has to be ramped up to compensate. Another reason why a couple of fast primes might be better.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that? My full frame Canon 6D Mk1 was one of the best low light FF cameras around at its time of launch and I've never found noise to be intrusive at higher ISO levels in 'average' dull lighting conditions. If it was, I'd have upgraded my camera by now. The 5D iv is even better in this respect. I find my 24-105 f/4 L lens is no problem at all as a general purpose lens, and the current 24-70 f/2.8 L is an even better lens than that (hence the high price, even on the used market).
 
Mr Badger said:
Why do you think that? My full frame Canon 6D Mk1 was one of the best low light FF cameras around at its time of launch and I've never found noise to be intrusive at higher ISO levels in 'average' dull lighting conditions. If it was, I'd have upgraded my camera by now. The 5D iv is even better in this respect. I find my 24-105 f/4 L lens is no problem at all as a general purpose lens, and the current 24-70 f/2.8 L is an even better lens than that (hence the high price, even on the used market).
Click to expand...
Then that's great - enjoy your kit.
 
ABTog said:
If you're doing events, weddings and engagements, then I'd go for the 24-70 f2.8. It's all round versatility is going to be the most useful thing to have. The 16-35 is too wide for those sorts of shots and although you could use it for the odd interior-church shot, it's not that useful to only have that one lens.
The Canon 24-70 f2.8 Mk2 is a very good lens. Not sure what you have against it. But you could look at the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Art lens. Newer and perhaps sharper.
Not to mention that the Sigma also has optical stabilisation. https://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lens-item/24-70mm-f2-8-dg-os-hsm/
What camera body is it going on?
Click to expand...
I agree that the 24-70 is more a bread and butter shot lens and there's the reason its so popular. it just doesn't do much on the bokeh or angles and leaves me unimpressed most of the time. I have some really nice shots with it now and again. the 16-35 would deliver the type of images people don't really see too often which i feel would be more engaging....but those images are the icing on the cake and not the cake.
I bought a brand new 24-70 f2,8L (the brick) years ago had it on a 1DS MkIII and it arrived the day before a wedding. I was naïve in those days and didn't test it properly. ...had loads of back focus issues which were not evident until I went to PP on the PC. it was certain focal length vs distance to subject...I was fuming. phoned CPS and they came the next day and collected my 1D MKIII and 1DS MKIII and all my lenses and calibrated them to both cameras. but no compensation.
 
torque22 said:
I agree that the 24-70 is more a bread and butter shot lens and there's the reason its so popular. it just doesn't do much on the bokeh or angles and leaves me unimpressed most of the time. I have some really nice shots with it now and again. the 16-35 would deliver the type of images people don't really see too often which i feel would be more engaging....but those images are the icing on the cake and not the cake.
I bought a brand new 24-70 f2,8L (the brick) years ago had it on a 1DS MkIII and it arrived the day before a wedding. I was naïve in those days and didn't test it properly. ...had loads of back focus issues which were not evident until I went to PP on the PC. it was certain focal length vs distance to subject...I was fuming. phoned CPS and they came the next day and collected my 1D MKIII and 1DS MKIII and all my lenses and calibrated them to both cameras. but no compensation.
Click to expand...
Fair enough if you had issues but if that was the Mk1 lens, have you tried the Mk2?
Also if that was on a 1D3 then that was APS-H crop sensor so you're not quite getting the full experience to compare to.
You could use the free Canon Test Drive promotion to get a weekend trial of the 24-70 f2.8 Mk2 and see if it fits the bill.
What camera are you shooting now?
 
ABTog said:
Fair enough if you had issues but if that was the Mk1 lens, have you tried the Mk2?
Also if that was on a 1D3 then that was APS-H crop sensor so you're not quite getting the full experience to compare to.
You could use the free Canon Test Drive promotion to get a weekend trial of the 24-70 f2.8 Mk2 and see if it fits the bill.
What camera are you shooting now?
Click to expand...
I was using the 24-70 on a 1DS Mkiii.
I recently sold all my cameras and have been debating r6 or 2nd hand 1dX II. so it was always going to FF.
I just bought a used 1DX II on eBay.
I'm still in a dilemma regarding a lenses purchase.
I have accepted that 16-35 comes later.
so now its between
ef-50 1.2 L
24-70 2.8 L
or even 50mm 1.4 and 35mm 2.0
 
torque22 said:
I was using the 24-70 on a 1DS Mkiii.
I recently sold all my cameras and have been debating r6 or 2nd hand 1dX II. so it was always going to FF.
I just bought a used 1DX II on eBay.
I'm still in a dilemma regarding a lenses purchase.
I have accepted that 16-35 comes later.
so now its between
ef-50 1.2 L
24-70 2.8 L
or even 50mm 1.4 and 35mm 2.0
Click to expand...
I would suggest testing a 24-70 before purchasing if you're not sure.
If you were looking at getting a 50 1.4, I'd look at the Sigma Art version and skip the old Canon version.
 
I bought the 16-35 f4 over the 16-35 f2.8 because is was better value for money. but the 2.8 does have slightly better quality but no IS.
You can see the test chart comparison here
ISO

I have the 24-70 f2.8 MKII and its a great standard reach lens (if thats what you need). Though I do miss the IS sometimes.

Its all personal taste,
 
Alternatively buy the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 with stabilisation and save some money, then get a s/h Sigma Art 50 f1.4.
 
ABTog said:
Alternatively buy the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 with stabilisation and save some money, then get a s/h Sigma Art 50 f1.4.
Click to expand...
well I just pulled the trigger on this. I'm a little apprehensive about it as it has a plastic barrel and wont hold its value.

I've decided to go with this and then get a 35mm 1.4 at some point followed by the 50 1.2. with a view to using them and having the 24-70 as a backup.
quite ironic that the lens I really wanted isn't on the list now.

rumour has it that there will be an Ef 50 1.2 II, well i read that somewhere, but I'm a little surprised as so many are switching to mirrorless and RF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top