EF 16-35 f/2.8L or EF 24-70 f/2.8L

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/06/2006 04:53:07 PM · #1

I have a dilemma...

I only have two lenses for my 20D camera:

EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS; and
EF 50 f/1.8

I need to add one that has a wider angle but do not necessary need to go all the way down to 35mm. But on the other hand - I do not need to cover the gap from 35mm to 70mm since I have a an excellent 50mm lens.

I sold my EF 17-40 f/4.0L to upgrade it to a faster lens.

So I am looking at these two:

EF 16-35 f/2.8L; or
EF 24-70 f/2.8L

I know - it's two completely different lenses. But if you could only get one, which one would you go for? Does anyone own both and know if there is an image quality difference on the two?

tazza

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/06/2006 04:57:57 PM · #2

I'd go for the 16-35. in fact I really want it! Just not got the money... 24 isn't wide enough on a 1.6 crop sensor. at 2.8 with the 16-35 you must be able to get some great shots indoors

MikeO

Fujifilm x100

01/06/2006 05:02:19 PM · #3

Yeh, i agree, I would go for the 16-35. Just wish I could afford one!

J_Ehrat

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

01/06/2006 05:04:57 PM · #4

Out of those 2...I say go for the 24-70L. I have seen comparisons between the 16-35 and the 17-40 and the 16-35 from what I saw was not worth the added stop. I don't think that by going from f/4 to f/2.8 on basically the same lens is going to make that much of a difference on the wide side. Where as with the 24-70 you'll be covered from 24-200 with f/2.8.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/06/2006 05:11:27 PM · #5

Both are highly rated. But for approximately the same money you can get the stunningly good Canon 10-22mm and the exceptionally sharp and well-made Tamron 28-75mm, and be working with true wide angle on your 20D. The 16mm extreme, on the 20D 1.6 crop sensor, is about the equivalent of a 25mm on a full frame camera, and this is not exceptionally wide. The 10-22mm, however, is an f/3.5-4.5 lens, not quite as fast. The Tamron is a constant f/2.8.

It depends on how wide you'd be happy with. I looked at both the canon 24-70mm and the Tamron, and IMO no way was the Canon worth 3x the price. The Tamron is exceptionally nice third-party glass, and one of the most popular lenses out there for that reason coupled with its affordable price.

R.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

01/06/2006 05:20:42 PM · #6

I got the 16-35 when I got my 300D and it was my walk around lens, when I got my 1D II I got the 24-70 which has become my walk around lens. It all depends on your style of shooting. For a 1.6x crop camera the 16-35 suited my needs as a wlk around lens and when I switched to a 1.3x crop camra the 24-70 suited my needs better. So now the 16-35 is only used when I need really wide angles.

The only problem with the 10-22 is if you want to upgrade your camera to a FF model later on you won't be able to use it. If you plan to stay with a 1.6X crop camera then the 10-22 should be way up there on your list.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/06/2006 05:41:12 PM · #7

Originally posted by doctornick:

And when you DO upgrade, if you do, you'll be able to recover most of the cost of the 10-22mm in the resale market, more than likely. The coverage is the issue; assuming you use the lens for, say, 2 years and sell it for, say, $500 then it has cost you 10 dollars a month, a pittance compared to what you have gained. I don't let issues like that hold me up for long. It (or a similar 3rd-party lens) is the ONLY way to get true extreme WA coverage without distortion on a 1.6 sensor camera.

R.

Prof_Fate

01/06/2006 05:46:44 PM · #8

Sigma as a 12-24 4.5-5.6 is not super fast, but very good and works on a full frame camera as well as the 1.6x.

A friend just sold his 16-35. On his 20D he used it, on his Mk2n he does not. Had had the 17-40 and did not like it, his opinion being the 16-35 is much better. He now uses the 24-70 when he needs a lens of that range, but is mostly into macro and wildlife at this stage and loves his 100 2.8.

J_Ehrat

01/06/2006 05:56:14 PM · #9

OR...............hahaha......just make it real easy and get the 24-70 AND a 15mm f/2.8 fisheye and you'll cover both. Not to mention they can be used on any canon slr, and would only cost you about $300 more than the 16-35L

yido

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

01/06/2006 08:09:02 PM · #10

If you are looking for a walking around Canon L lens, I'd recommend the 16-35, 24mm on a cropped sensor is generally not wide enough for me for landscapes, buildings, etc.
Good Luck.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

01/06/2006 09:24:49 PM · #11

The question would really be: how wide do you want to go?

If, as you say, you don't mind having a bit of a gap (plugged to some extent by the 50mm) and want to photograph architecture etc., then perhaps the 16-35 would be better. If you prefer portraits, then the 24-70 might be better. I prefer to use slightly longer focal lengths as a norm, so would probably go for the 24-70 if I had to pick one, but then that's me. I used a 28-135 as my main lens on a 20D and the lack of wide angle in normal use didn't bother me.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

01/07/2006 12:30:36 PM · #12

Thanks for all the useful replies!

I'm still very unsure about this though.... it looks like most would have bought the 16-35.

My wife lets me make this purchase so she can take better pictures in our house and outside of our 3 month old son. The 50mm is good but not good enough for group shots or shots where we want to include a Christmas tree, a nice backdrop in the nature etc.

It would've been nice if 24mm would cut it but I'm afraid that with the 1.6 crop factor on the 20D that I might need to go for the 16-35. I'm only worried then that my wife will complain that it doesn't zoom big enough when she wants portrait style pictures of my son. And yes, she does not want to change lenses... (not that I let her anyway :) )

AlexSaberi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/07/2006 12:41:43 PM · #13

I would say if you are looking to spend £1000 on some some glass, then chances are in a few years, with the current canon trend, you may well be using a full frame camera. So I say look into the future for what u may need. The 24-70 is a fantastic lense. And whatever people say the tamron is nowhere near it in terms of optics and focus speed.

24-70 without a doubt. IMHO.

Prof_Fate

01/07/2006 02:12:58 PM · #14

A wide angle like a 16 will distort the image -as in people, faces, etc - whether that bothers you or not is for you to decide. Just be aware.
There are alternatives to such expensive L glass, that in all reality you will not be able to tell the difference.
canon 17-40 4L
sigma 18-50 2.8 EX
tamron 16-35 SP
tamron 28-75 2.8

you could get a couple or even 3 of these for the cost of the 16-35 alone. 89% of shooters cannot tell the difference, and 100% of consmumers can't tell either when looking at a printed image what lens took it.

If investment is an issue, you will do better with the high end L glass at resale, but the 16-35 is $1400, the sigma 18-50 is $500. The $900 saved could be invested in Tbills or CDs or something and you're likley to come out ahead.

Falc

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/07/2006 02:26:36 PM · #15

OK here's my take on this ....

If you are into landscapes at all then you have to have the 16-35.
Ignore any recommendation for and EF-S lens as they will be redundant when the full frame sensor SLRs hit the streets. EF-S is a dead end.

If you are not into landscapes then the 24-70 is probably where you should be looking.

For what its worth I have the 16-35 and its superb. It is my walk round lens on the 10D, but I have my eye on a 5D and I'll be reverting to the 50mm1.8 as the main walkround lens pretty soon.

Oh and don't believe that you won't be able to tell the difference between Canon 'L' and say a Tamron/Sigma .... you will see the difference if you make competition size prints, but you won't if you are simply interested in 640x480 DPC submissions.

Message edited by author 2006-01-07 14:29:24.

01/07/2006 03:13:48 PM · #16

Thanks,

Yes I have had Canons 75-300 'cheap' lens. Traded then to an EF 70-200 4.0L and then to the EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Each upgrade has been a night and day difference.

But I have never tried or owned a Sigma or Tamron so I can't comment on them, but the concensus from reviews is that there is definitely a difference.

But having these expensive lense... I am using my 50mm 1.8 for walk around. It is very sharp (and was only $100!) but most of all... it's a tiny feather to carry compared with the IS lens - and I don't look silly showing up at the company party with something that looks like it belongs in the press box in a NHL match.

But maybe the 16-35 is small enough that it doesn't look too obtrusive...

Prof_Fate

01/07/2006 03:21:42 PM · #17

EF-S is not dead. It's not 2 years old yet - we'll know more next month.
As for FF being the way to go - Only Canon makes FF cameras. They are the lone wolf, and lone wolves often die. But who knows what the future holds, not us.

You will notice the diff between L and lesser glass if you print 16x20 or larger, side by side. How many of us do that? Will his wife, whom is bnot allowed to change lenses and is taking pics of the kids/grandkids, really want her images blown up that big? I doubt it.

The sigma 18-50 is comparable to the 17-40. The 16-35 is much better, but for the additional price is should be.

THe tamron 28-75 is comparable to the 24-70 L lens.
If you check FM reviews, you get overall ratings of:
Canon 16-35 8.8
17-40 8.9
24-70 8.9
all very good. I might argue with the 17-40 outrankign the 16-35 though.

Sigma 18-50 8.2. Not too shabby for a lens that can be had new for $450 - 1/3 the canon 16-35 price.
and one no one has mentioned the 24-60 2.8 EX 9.1 - better than the canon glass.

tamron 28-75 8.7
and the 17-35 SP lens is at 9.5 - the king of them all.

Regardless, all are very good lenses. My thought is if you ahve to choose between them, choose less costly but still excellent glass and get both focal ranges.

If you are getting the 16-35 for a reason other than optical (as the above reviews seem to suggest it isnt worh the extra cost) then it must be for bragging rights (i can't help feed your ego, sorry) or lack of info (you think it is the best, but i can help there) or because you think it will hold it's value (which is whill, but there are other ways of looking at investing money. You won't lose maybe, you won't make money on buying/selling lenses)

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

01/07/2006 03:51:27 PM · #18

Good points Prof. But keep in mind that FM's ratings are often based on 'value for money' - which is good but not necessarily an indicator of best quality.

My wife is only the secondary user - she likes the fact that she can also use it. And if this helps me justify it - why not? :). I use the equipment for much more than taking pictures of the kids.

Where I see the difference mostly is when I crop out small sections of pictures (which I do often) and need to see the result at near 100%. So what's night and day for me, is not neccessarily night and day for others.

I'm sure all the lenses you mentioned are great. But I have learned that I never get satisfied until I get what I wanted in the first place... and then it only gets expensive to go all the steps to get there. Yep - I know, a personal problem... not good but I suffer wih this condition :)

langdon

Canon EOS-20D

01/07/2006 03:57:17 PM · #19

Were you happy with your Canon 17-40 f/4.0L as far as quality? I got one recently to replace my 18-55 that I dropped in the reflecting pool. I did some sharpness tests with the 17-40 vs my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8L and was suprised to see that the Tamron was equal if not sharper.

I kind of want to return the 17-40 and get the 16-35 f/2.8L, because, yes, 2.8 over 4.0 is huge. When I got my Tamron, I swore I'd never get a lens if it wasn't 2.8 (oops). So my suggestion (like everyone elses) is to get the Tamron 28-75 over the 24-70 or just get the 16-35!

Message edited by author 2006-01-07 15:59:02.

Pioneer

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX DG HSM for Canon EOS

01/07/2006 04:05:09 PM · #20

I just went through this myself in the last few weeks and I went for the Sigma 15-30. Too early to give an opinion yet, but all the specs look great. I looked at a lot of the reviews at Photo Zone and that helped a lot. It's worth looking there to get some ideas

TLL061

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

01/07/2006 04:33:31 PM · #21

? I got one recently to replace my 18-55 that I dropped in the reflecting pool.

I was standing rite next to him when this happened , He took it like a man , not even a tear

Message edited by author 2006-01-07 16:34:06.

langdon

Canon EOS-20D

01/07/2006 04:49:24 PM · #22

Originally posted by TLL061:

? I got one recently to replace my 18-55 that I dropped in the reflecting pool.

I was standing rite next to him when this happened , He took it like a man , not even a tear

Well, it was a crap lens to begin with! :)

AlexSaberi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

01/07/2006 05:19:35 PM · #23

Originally posted by langdon:

it isnt just about sharpness though, is it.

01/07/2006 05:44:35 PM · #24

Alex is right. It's not only about sharpness.

I shoot a lot of pictures of both birds and airplanes in flight. A super fast AI focus is very important to me. It doesn't matter how sharp a lens is if it doesn't focus... But for someone that mostly shoots portraits, architecture or landscape for instance, it may not be an important feature.

Distortion is another thing...according to test pictuers, the 16-35 2.8L has very little of it and it's hardly noticeable - even at 16mm.

J_Ehrat