| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2005 10:55:16 AM · #1 |
| I'm planning on getting the canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens next month and I'm either going to get the 24-70 or 16-35 with it. The only lens I have now is the 50mm 1.4 and I went to a car show with it recently and it was totally unacceptable. The lens is great, but it just wasn't wide enough. I could only stand so far away from a car across an aisle without bumping into another car and the most I could get from that was just the hood of a car. Another problem I had was that I had to stand so far away across an aisle that people didn't even notice I was taking a picture of a car, so I had tons of people walking in front of me. What I'm wondering is if the 24-70 would be wide enough for the next car show I go to, or if I should go for the wider 16-35? Which one is a better everyday lens? Is it worth getting one now and saving for the other later? Thanks for any advice :) |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 11:02:23 AM · #2 |
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
You might also consider this lens. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 11:03:50 AM · #3 |
The 70-200 2.8 is one of Canon's better lenses, or so I've heard. But, even at the wide end, it's still a short telephoto. In fact, with the 1.6x crop factor on your 20D, it would be 112mm at the wide end.
If you want wide then you should probably go with the 16-35. I recently bought the 17-40 and I love it. I would have gone for the 16-35, but I couldn't justify spending twice as much.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 11:10:14 AM · #4 |
| I though about the 10-22, but it needs to be a lens that is going to do great in low light as well. I do photography for some local bands. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 11:15:22 AM · #5 |
The 70-200 and the 24-70 are probably of the best glass (Canon) money can buy. The optical quality of the 24-70, by far, exceeds that of the 16-35, IMO. There is no contest between the two.
I prefer the quality of the far less expensive 17-40 to the 16-35, which has a fairly consistent sharpness and good contrast throughout most of its focal range.
(Opinion)
Message edited by author 2005-01-19 11:18:27.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 11:42:28 AM · #6 |
I don't have, and have not used the 16-35, but do have the 24-70 and the 70-200/2.8 IS, and I agree with zeuszen that this is as good as it gets with Canon zooms. I've seen conflicting reports on the 16-35, some are very impressed with it, and others are not so impressed, especially for the price.
Personally, I think that for wide angle, primes are looking like a better route. I've gone with the 15mm fish, and will probably supplement that with a 20mm prime this year, hopefully something faster than 2.8
If I were shooting a car show, I would take the 24-70 and the 15mm fisheye. the fish is so small and light that it's a no-brainer to bring along.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:04:16 PM · #7 |
If you're after speed (i.e. f/stop), image quality and wide coverage, you'll be hard pressed to do better than the 16-35, f/2.8. I own the 17-40, f/4, and while it's a great lens, it's only an f/4; and, since you'll be shooting indoors, in low light, in tight spots (clubs), the 16-35, f/2.8 will give you the coverage and speed that the situation demands. As an aside, in about a month or two I'll be trading in my 17-40 for the 16-35 because it's a more versatile lens, period.
Here are a couple of threads at FredMiranda.com that might inform you a bit more:
16-35, f/2.8
17-40, f/4
As for the 24-70 f/2.8... I've heard a lot mixed reviews on this lens; though, I must admit, am intrigued by it. One things is for sure, the thing is super heavy. Just yesterday, in fact, I stopped by my local photo store to play with it, and that's the first thing that jumped out at me... its weight. Also, for your particular needs, in-door shoots in small spaces, the 24-70 f/2.8 times the 20D's crop factor of 1.6, will put some tight shots beyond the lens' coverage.
Finally, in terms of paying the hefty price that these lenses go for, I would advice to think long term. Yes you'll be paying a good sum up-front; however, as the cliche goes, that's the price for quality -- of course, depending on your particular needs and long range plans. Moreover, at some point -- in the relatively near future (5 years), I think -- Canon will offer a full-frame DSLR at a pro-sumer price; so, why not get the quality glass now that'll not be limited by today' crop factor (i.e. the EF series is designed for the 300d and the 20D).
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 01:28:39 PM · #8 |
I think the 16-35 would be alot better than 24-70 for shooting stuff like Carshows!
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 01:38:58 PM · #9 |
At least with crop factor 1.6 I wouldn't consider 24mm as a real wide lens (38,4mm).
If I had Canon I would buy that 17-40mm F4 I think |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:04:43 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Nazgul:
I think the 16-35 would be alot better than 24-70 for shooting stuff like Carshows! |
Yes, and no. Although the wide end of the 16-35 will give opportunity to shoot close-in and possibly avoid obstruction, the WA distortion is more severe. Also, the 24-70 ranks right up there with the very best zooms by any manufacturer as far as optical quality, while the 16-35 is not as sharp wide open (and you would expect that would be the case with a very wide f/2.8 zoom). The above is the reason that I would elect to take the 24-70 and the 15mm fisheye. The fish gives the option to get in very close, it's f/2.8, and is quite sharp. The 24-70 minimizes distortion, is a stellar optical performer, is f/2.8, and is wide enough if supplemented with a very wide prime.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:26:55 PM · #11 |
Just a thought but do you have any local stores where you could rent the lenses? I recently purchased the 24-70 L and the 17-40 L, I will try to provide you with some examples and comparisons when they arrive, if you'd like. I decided to go with the 17-40 as it was about $700 cheaper and the photo comparisons, in my opinion were better than the 16-35. Granted... the 16-35 is a stop faster and 1mm wider but I didnt think that was worth the added expense.
Here is a good article comparing the two: //www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:42:43 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by xcharrier:
...I decided to go with the 17-40 as it was about $700 cheaper and the photo comparisons, in my opinion were better than the 16-35. Granted... the 16-35 is a stop faster and 1mm wider but I didnt think that was worth the added expense... |
And there is the crux of the matter. If the 16-35 were only as universally-praised for optical quality as the 17-40, the decision would be much easier. Compounding the problem is that f/4 just is not fast enough for many venues; even f/2.8 is "on the bubble."
That's why I'm buying neither, for now, and going with wider primes.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 04:14:23 PM · #13 |
I think these two lenses are at different levels. One is wide angle, the other is walk around. Also, I've heard many good reports on the 24-70, and some bad reports with the 16-35. I guess it just depends on what you'll use it for, they simply cover different ranges.
IMO, 35 isn't long enough for a walkaround, and 24 isn't quite wide enough for a walkaround. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 04:29:23 PM · #14 |
id realy think about the fisheye. with the 1.6 theres little distortion and still a very wide f.o.v.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 11:15:54 AM EDT.
