Question for the group...I'm starting to invest in some better lenses. Recently purchased the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens (fantastic!) and am now debating between the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II vs. 24-70mm f/2.8 L. I have a crummy 18-55mm kit lens and am trying to decide between getting a good wide angle first or going with the mid-range and bagging the cheapie kit lens. Thoughts?

I take it you've got a 1.6 crop, if you're using a 18-55. Generally, you know what is better for you, by looking at what focal lengths you use the most. Personally, I find the extra reach more important. I take it also you're not looking at the 17-55 because.... you might go full frame? If so, when. Because 24 is pretty wide full frame.

I am going FF eventually, but want to invest in some good glass first and ride out the potential MKIII issues I keep hearing about. I actually just pulled the trigger on Adorama's website on the 16-35 II. I really enjoy landscape shooting and figure this will give me what I need.

I'd be curious to see how they compare in the overlap region. From what many have said the 16-35 II is at it's weakest in the 24-35 region and is no better than the mk I. it seems to have been optimised for the 16-24 FL. I'd expect the 24-70 to be better in the 24-35 range, but would love to see proof.

I have both on my 20D. I got the 24-70 first and loved it but it was never wide enough for indoor shots.
I got the 16-35II and I have to say it's my most used lens. I never had the Mk 1 version so I can't compare but the Mk 2 is as good for me as the 24-70.
Nice colours, contrast and great bokeh, super fast focusing and a lot lighter than the 24-70. The pop-up flash is rendered less useful ( I never use it for anything more than fill anyway) as the 16-35's 82mm's of stomping "L" lense leaves a shadow.
That aside I am keeping my 24-70 for FF, I'll see if I get more use out of it then.

I'd go 16-35II on a crop, plus when you do go FF you have an excellent UWA. It's win-win!

EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II vs. EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L

Just the title gives me a headache considering the big difference btw the two

Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'd be curious to see how they compare in the overlap region.... but would love to see proof.

Check this > http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=0

the 24-70 is a classic lens used by many pros for top grade work--if you can fine the you tube of annie leb. shooting the queen of england, you will note that is the lens she used. the images she (and her photoshop tech) produced are just amazing. the 16-35 II is also outstanding and great for photo-journalistic style shoot as well as travel. each has its place and that is not the same place. i recently shot the 16-35 II on a 1ds Mk3 and at large resolution, the images are stunning. for what i do, a 16-35, 70-200 and 300 or 400 cover 99% of my needs. but if i need to do some portrait work, the 24-70 can work like a charm.

for landscape I'd think the 17-40 would be a better bet. Sharper and no need for speed with landscapes.

pipspeak wrote:
for landscape I'd think the 17-40 would be a better bet. Sharper and no need for speed with landscapes.

Not really, The 16-35II's contrast is far more better, so much more detail in the shadow. Color is more WOW than the 17-40. For me the 16-35II is a world better than the 17-40.

the 16-35mm f2.8 II is an awesome lens, i'm sure you'll enjoy it. the 24-70mm lens is good too, but there's no use comparing a WA lenses to a standard lens.

I have had the 16-35 for several years and it has been far and away the most used lens I have. I do not have the 70-200 f/4 but I see it is not as large or heavy as the 70-200 (4.4" vs. 6.8", 1.4 lbs. vs. 1.7 lbs.),

The 16-35 is an excellent all around lens and I have found I rarely put on another lens when traveling. I especially like it for the low light situations that one seems to come upon when on vacation. Since I really dislike direct flash photography, it has been a real pleasure to use and have never had any regrets despite its high price.

Let me be the one to say: welcome to our forum with lots of EOSfun!

You didn't mention portraiture or close focus photography, reporter style documentaries or event photography. If that is important for you the 24-70 is the best allround glass. A 24-70 maybe the allrounder, but I find that is especially true for the 1.3 bodies. That's why you'll see so many pros working with that lens on their workhorse 1D camera.

But since you mentioned the love for landscape photography, on a 1.6 crop body the 16-35 is a better choice for the purposes you mentioned. The 16-35 is reasonably wide lens on a crop body, but even not too much. The 10-20 is the real wide lens if you want that in landscaping. Whenever you'll go full frame the 16-35 will be the invaluable super wide lens you want. On your current body it will be acting like a normal wide lens until normal perspective range.

Whatever you choose both are great pieces of optics. You won't regret any choice, but be sure it's the range you want. You could eventually rent both lenses for a weekend or a day to find out what is important for you and what fits your needs best. Some local dealers offer a refund of the rental if you buy the lens of your choice.

I have the 24-70 and use it for my WA stuff. I am shooting on a both 1.6 and 1.3 crops.
I have some money that is burning a hole in my pocket right now, so I am trying to figure out whether to buy the 16-35 or the 50 or 85 1.2 also looking at the 135 2.0

Hi my name is Barry...and I am an addict. I havent bought any equipment for 67 days 12 hours and 10 minutes. Anyone else in this club?

AngusM wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'd be curious to see how they compare in the overlap region.... but would love to see proof.

Check this > http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=0


Thanks Angus.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
AngusM wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'd be curious to see how they compare in the overlap region.... but would love to see proof.

Check this > http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=0


Thanks Angus.
Those charts are not that accurate especially how the the Canon 70-200 f/4 out resolves the Canon 200 1.8 ......... not

I have all three and love them. My first "L" was a 70-200 f/4.0 non-IS. It replaced a 70-300 IS and was a huge step up. Next was a 17-40. Nice lens but didn't blow my socks off. Third was the 24-70. Fantastic lens. The sharpness, color, and contrast from this lens is incredible. Replaced the 70-200 with the IS version, and IMHO there is a noticeable improvement. Just replaced the 17-40 with the 16-35II and now have three with the image quality of the 24-70. Couldn't be more happy with this trio and use the 24-70 the most (60% ?).

You can't go wrong with either and the cost is similar. The 16-35II is the latest design and there has been some talk () of an update for the 24-70, so I would probably go with the 16-35 first.

rbranan wrote:
the 24-70 is a classic lens used by many pros for top grade work--if you can fine the you tube of annie leb. shooting the queen of england, you will note that is the lens she used. the images she (and her photoshop tech) produced are just amazing. the 16-35 II is also outstanding and great for photo-journalistic style shoot as well as travel. each has its place and that is not the same place. i recently shot the 16-35 II on a 1ds Mk3 and at large resolution, the images are stunning. for what i do, a 16-35, 70-200 and 300 or 400 cover 99% of my needs. but if i need to do some portrait work, the 24-70 can work like a charm.

I can't find that video. You got the link?

The first question you need to ask yourself is: How do I like the range of my 18-55? Do I find it useful and suitable for my needs? Do I constantly crave for a wider lens? Do I constantly crave for a longer lens?

As you are well covered from 70mm and up I think that a lens that ends with 70mm is a bit redundant. The 35-70 range is not that big while the 16-24 difference certainly is. Thus, the 16-35 would be my personal pick.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

pipspeak wrote:
for landscape I'd think the 17-40 would be a better bet. Sharper and no need for speed with landscapes.

The 17-40 is not a better lens than the 16-35 II. The only reason to buy it would be the lower price...........

Lars Johnsson wrote:
pipspeak wrote:
for landscape I'd think the 17-40 would be a better bet. Sharper and no need for speed with landscapes.

The 17-40 is not a better lens than the 16-35 II. The only reason to buy it would be the lower price...........

In my case the smaller size and lighter weight are significant advantages (I do a lot of landscape work while on foot, often on weeklong pack trips) and the f/2.8 maximum aperture of the excellent 16-35 provides no value. (And before another poster suggests that I'm a wimp for worrying about the size/weight difference between these two lenses, let my point out that I carry 12 pound or more of photo equipment, often across 12,000'+ passes along with other equipment - so I watch the ounces.)

I do own and carry other lenses that are larger, heavier, and much more expensive than the 17-40, I shoot full frame, and I carry a large tripod - but those things all make a difference in my photographic results.

As a value proposition, the 16-35 doesn't work for this photographer's landscape work. If it produced better images than the 17-40 I would buy one and carry the extra weight, but it doesn't. YMMV.
Dan

I'm not doubting that weight is an issue for you Dan but 6 ozs?
I think that greater flexibilty, brighter viewfinder and superior image/sharpness/contrast (albeit minor on sharpness) is worth the extra 6 ozs a 16-35 weighs over a 17-40.

The 16 is no 'brick' and F2.8 is always nice to have. Just my view and not knocking yours.

The 17-40 is a a great lense but the 16-35 is better.

BigTex wrote:
Question for the group...I'm starting to invest in some better lenses. Recently purchased the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L IS USM Lens (fantastic!) and am now debating between the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II vs. 24-70mm f/2.8 L. I have a crummy 18-55mm kit lens and am trying to decide between getting a good wide angle first or going with the mid-range and bagging the cheapie kit lens. Thoughts?

If you need wide angle, get the 16-35mm.
If you need mid-range, get the 24-70mm.
If you can't decide, get both

The 16-35mm is definitely much better than your 18-55mm.

danmitchell wrote:
Lars Johnsson wrote:
pipspeak wrote:
for landscape I'd think the 17-40 would be a better bet. Sharper and no need for speed with landscapes.

The 17-40 is not a better lens than the 16-35 II. The only reason to buy it would be the lower price...........

In my case the smaller size and lighter weight are significant advantages (I do a lot of landscape work while on foot, often on weeklong pack trips) and the f/2.8 maximum aperture of the excellent 16-35 provides no value. (And before another poster suggests that I'm a wimp for worrying about the size/weight difference between these two lenses, let my point out that I carry 12 pound or more of photo equipment, often across 12,000'+ passes along with other equipment - so I watch the ounces.)

I do own and carry other lenses that are larger, heavier, and much more expensive than the 17-40, I shoot full frame, and I carry a large tripod - but those things all make a difference in my photographic results.

As a value proposition, the 16-35 doesn't work for this photographer's landscape work. If it produced better images than the 17-40 I would buy one and carry the extra weight, but it doesn't. YMMV.
Dan

But he wrote the 17-40 is a sharper lens than the 16-35 mkII, and it's not sharper.
And saying the 16-35 II lens is big and the 17-40 small It's 95gr. more heavy and a about 1,5 cm longer...........
It's also a little bit wider which is good for landscape shooting.
Both lenses are good, but the only reason to buy the 17-40 is the lower price. Which of course is important

AngusM, thanks for the link. This is a great tool to compare online.