| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Canon 16-35 f2.8 II or Canon 24-70 f2.8
David Lorish, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Portland/Corvallis/Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 7:23 PM on 06.25.09 |
| ->> I am looking to purchase a new standard/wide zoom lens. At this point I am between the 16-35 and 24-70. What is best lens for general use, and photojournalism? |
|
Max Gersh, Photographer
|
St. Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 8:10 PM on 06.25.09 |
| ->> I love both lenses but my 24-70 is my go-to lens for almost everything. |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 9:13 PM on 06.25.09 |
| ->> Depends on the camera body. Go 16-35 on a 1.6 or 1.3 crop, or 24-70 on a FF. |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 9:26 PM on 06.25.09 |
| ->> Personally I like the trio of 70-2002.8, 16-35 2.8, and a 50 1.4 for my day to day PJ stuff. That said I'm saving up for a 24-70 to use as a grab camera lens for sports coverage since the 16-35 is to wide for my tastes. |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 9:29 PM on 06.25.09 |
| ->> I have and love both lenses. However I find myself pulling out the 24-70 more often than the 16-35. |
|
Kevin Seale, Photographer
|
Crawfordsville | IN | United States | Posted: 11:58 PM on 06.25.09 |
->> "I have and love both lenses. However I find myself pulling out the 24-70 more often than the 16-35."
+1 |
|
Matt McKnight, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | U.S.A. | Posted: 12:42 AM on 06.26.09 |
| ->> 35mm 1.4 and move forward or back up. |
|
Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
|
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 12:44 AM on 06.26.09 |
| ->> agree with the group. the 16-35 is great, but not an everyday lens for many people. 24-70 is everyday, all the time. |
|
Clay Begrin, Photographer
 |
Petaluma | Ca | USA | Posted: 1:44 AM on 06.26.09 |
| ->> David, I have both and agree with Jody, Kevin and Mike. I use the 24-70 a ton more. With the 16-35 unless you're working within about 5' of your subject the 24-70 will probably suit you bette. |
|
Jason Hunter, Photographer, Assistant
|
Potsdam | NY | United States | Posted: 1:53 AM on 06.26.09 |
->> I much prefer the 16-35. While working at the Topeka Capital-Journal, where I had both lenses, I used my wide lens everyday and rarely touched the 24-70. Really personal preference, but I prefer to get as close to my subjects as possible.
For sideline sports the 24-70 is the short lens of choice to have with your long glass because the 16-35 is too wide, but that's the only time I would chose the 24-70 over the 16-35. I use the 16-35 and the 70-200 everyday. |
|
Andrew Nelles, Photographer
 |
Chicago | Ill. | usa | Posted: 1:57 AM on 06.26.09 |
->> ->> "I have and love both lenses. However I find myself pulling out the 24-70 more often than the 16-35."
Same here |
|
Ron Bernardo, Photographer
|
Hamilton | ON | Canada | Posted: 8:43 AM on 06.26.09 |
| ->> I like the 24-70 than the 16-35. |
|
Thomas B. Shea, Photographer
|
Pearland/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 10:17 AM on 06.26.09 |
| ->> Neither the Canon 24-105/4L, is the best canon lens I have ever used. I constantly hand hold exposures at 1/8 of a second with the IS on this lens. This is a fantastic lens. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 11:05 AM on 06.26.09 |
->> 16-35 always seemed to open me up more to be creative, while I was safer with the 24-70.
I ditched mine tho to get a 50 1.2. And love the bokeh that I have gained as a result!
16-35
50 1.2
70-200
300 2.8 |
|
Gary Pirnat, Photographer
|
La Mirada | CA | USA | Posted: 11:09 AM on 06.26.09 |
| ->> I agree with Thomas, Canon 24-105/4L. I had the Canon 24-70 along with the 24-105 for awhile and found I was rarely using the 24-70... so I sold it. The 24-105 is also lighter. |
|
Mike Anzaldi, Photographer
|
Oak Park | IL | USA | Posted: 11:55 AM on 06.26.09 |
->> don't you guys find that F4 a little difficult? i would think the 24-105 is a better lens for an amateur photog who shoots on automagic. they just want a lightweight lens with plenty of zoom range for snap shots- damn the background.
i would think that as a pro, you would want the ability to make those unpredictable backgrounds on the street fade away. further, you are talking photojournalism right? 2 cameras, 2 lenes. 24-70, 70-200. seldom is it this easy to choose equipment. this said, the rest of the ideas here are solid as well, but this combo seems to be the standard for newspaper folks.
but then again... |
|
Dominick Reuter, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boston | MA | USA | Posted: 12:36 PM on 06.26.09 |
->> @Matt McKnight: "35mm 1.4 and move forward or back up."
+1million |
|
Brian Tietz, Photographer
|
Fort Myers | FL | USA | Posted: 3:03 PM on 06.26.09 |
| ->> Why not get a 17-40 f/4 or 24-105 f/4 and invest the difference in a good fast prime. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 3:22 PM on 06.26.09 |
->> 16-35 on both the MarkII 5D and the Mark III
I like to get in close and the 24 just doesn't do it
for me. as far as primes....well that's nice if you know
EXACTLY what you're headed out to shoot but personally
(this is my personal opinion okay) I think you really
paint yourself into a corner with a prime lens when you're
talking about wide angle, especially if you're a photojournalist. I remember back in the day using primes,
had a 20, 24, 35, 55, and 105 in the bag....gotta tell ya,
I don't miss those days. I get great results from the 16-35
day in and day out. |
|
Kent Nishimura, Student/Intern
|
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 6:00 PM on 06.26.09 |
| ->> i too use the 16-35 and 70-200 every day. my 24-70 is collecting dust. |
|
Richard Heathcote, Photographer
|
London | . | UK | Posted: 4:38 AM on 06.27.09 |
->> The new 16-35 2.8 mk2 is very good, massive improvement in terms of build quality and sharpness... I think you'll get alot more use out of that than the 24-70, my 24-70 only comes out for PR jobs, where the 16-35 is in use nearly every event I shoot.
I've not used the 17-40 f4, but I know alot of guys who swear by it as a cheap option, especially now the higher ISO performance is getting better and better.... |
|
Daniel Malmberg, Photographer
|
Huskvarna | Sweden | Sweden | Posted: 7:42 AM on 06.27.09 |
->> I recently bought a used 17-40/4 (for 4000 SEK + VAT which is about $500 + VAT).
I find this lens very good.
Especially for its price (even if you buy an new one).
If you don't need the to have the bigger aperture i can really recommend the 17-40/4.
Very sharp, even on its biggest aperture. |
|
Ron Manfredi, Photographer
 |
Merrick (Long Island) | NY | | Posted: 11:53 AM on 06.27.09 |
| ->> I would consider the 24-105L if you think you can afford the 1 stop slower speed. It is smaller and lighter than the 24-70, and I find the extra 35mm of "reach" often useful. |
|
David Lorish, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Portland/Corvallis/Eugene | OR | USA | Posted: 1:32 AM on 07.01.09 |
| ->> Thank you all for the feedback, it is incredibly helpful. Increasingly he 24-105 f4L IS has been suggested but what I am wondering is; in practice can the IS really compensate better than the extra stop in the 24-70? |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Marcos | CA | United States | Posted: 2:16 AM on 07.01.09 |
| ->> I have both and also have pulled the 24-70 more so. I have lately been forcing myself to pull the 16-35 and get closer to my subjects when possible. It's a personal thing and I'm finally beginning to like it. Either way you go it's a win win situation. Ask yourself what your sourrounding elements will most likely be? And consider that over all. If your tight and don't have a lot of room to manuever then go 16-35 and vise versa. Either way ENJOY! |
|
Harrison Shull, Photographer
|
Fayetteville, WV | Asheville, NC | | Posted: 7:47 AM on 07.01.09 |
| ->> I have all three lenses - 16-35, 24-70, 24-105. They are all great lenses. The 24-105 is downright amazing. It is sharp as a tack and can be handheld down to insanely low shutter sppeds thanks to the IS. My 24-70 has been relegated to a backup body that has not seen much action but it is a great lens that's only drawback is that it is slightly large and heavy. If I were forced to reduce these 3 lenses to 2... I would keep the 24-105 in a heartbeat. mind you I am shooting the 5D verI that has decent ISO through maybe 400. If I had the 5D2, then this would be a no contest thanks to the high ISO performance. |
|
Neil Turner, Photographer
|
Bournemouth | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 8:53 AM on 07.03.09 |
->> Big, big fan of the 24-70 f2.8L lens now that I'm shooting with 5D MkII bodies. It's a flawed lens for sure - weight and barrel distortion - but it does a great job for me as most of my work is portraiture. The results are a very good colour, contrast and even bokeh match for the 70-200 f2.8L IS which lives on the other body 99% of the time.
I had the 24-105 f4 for a month or two but I must have had a bad copy because it was neither sharp or quick to focus.
Still have a 16-35 f2.8L which will be retired as soon as I have the cash to get the MkII version. |
|
Sergei Belski, Photographer
|
Calgary | AB | Canada | Posted: 12:02 AM on 07.04.09 |
->> 16-35mm, 50mm, 70-200mm is the best combination for me! :)
Sergei |
|
Garrett Hubbard, Photographer
|
Washington | D.C. | USA | Posted: 12:10 AM on 07.04.09 |
->> "->> Depends on the camera body. Go 16-35 on a 1.6 or 1.3 crop, or 24-70 on a FF."
Agree fully with Tim Snow's post. 16-35 on a FF camera has way too much distortion. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 12:36 AM on 07.04.09 |
->> (When I was shooting Canon) I never felt the 16-35 was as sharp as it could/should be. I sent one in several times to try to get CPS repair to get it sharp. They finally sent me another brand-new one, which was a bit better, but that went to CPS in a couple of times for tweaks.
(The old 17-35 was horrible in terms of sharpness. I went though several before I got one that I felt was reasonably close to sharp.)
As everyone had recommended above, the 24-70 is the way to go on a "full framer". And if you want something wider, maybe pick up a prime wider lens.
But if you're shooting with a Mark II/IIn/III(non-s) the 1.3 crop factor kind of puts you in a "tweener". If you are shooting portraits, then the 24-70 is a definite. It's sharp, more versatile and you won't have a problem with bad distortion issues. If you're a back-peddling-wide-angle-in-the-face shooter...well the wider zoom is the way to go.
Roberto Seale loves the Canon 24-105. Check out his portrait work --- and read his recent comparison of the hi-res DSLRs. |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 1:03 AM on 07.04.09 |
| ->> And see, I had two 24-70's that I felt were the softest lenses I ever had. Always had to do major sharpening in post, and my 16-35 was pretty sharp. Although, my old Tamron 20-40 is still the sharpest wide I ever had! |
|
Sergei Belski, Photographer
|
Calgary | AB | Canada | Posted: 2:04 AM on 07.04.09 |
| ->> Just wanted to add that I got a new 16-35mm version II and it is much sharper than the fist version I had. Love it! |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|