# EF16-35 a best fit lens over 24-70



## flixelpix (Jul 27, 2011)

Hi all,

I have been deliberating buying the EF16-35 to replace my 24-70 and 17-40 lens combination. I am wondering what you think on that idea. One reservation I have is that if I sell both my lenses I probably only cover the cost of the new lens and thus would I be better with what I have?

David


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 27, 2011)

Well shoot... what do you shoot? (couldn't resist)... seriously, do you use the 24-70? That's a lot of range to lose... can you get by with that 1 lens than 2 lenses? What camera are you using? That's something only you can answer.


----------



## flixelpix (Jul 28, 2011)

I have the 5DMKII and I think I tend to shoot mostly wide, my problem with the 24-70 is, added to the 5D it is quite a bit of lugging around? 

David


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2011)

Do you absolutely require f/2.8? I'm guessing no, since you have the 17-40mm f/4L. The 24-105mm f/4L IS is a whole lot lighter that the 24-70 (not too different from your 17-40), and a whole lot cheaper, too. I find it to be an excellent walkaround lens on my 5DII. Also, the 16-35mm II is weakest at the long end.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2011)

Also, it comes down to need. If you do home maintenance for a living, and most of the houses in your area are single-story, you mostly use a 10' ladder. But, if you need to work on a two-story house and you got rid of your 18' ladder, you either rent one or you don't get the job. So, will you not need -ever- a lens over 35mm? 

Maybe it's a disclosure issue - for example, you mention 17-40 and 24-70, but if there are also a 50mm prime and a 70-200mm zoom hiding in your bag, trading the first two for a 16-35mm might make more sense...


----------



## Etienne (Jul 28, 2011)

16-35 2.8 L II is my most used lens.
I go out for the day with that lens alone and I am quite happy. I own the 24-105 f4 IS but I usually leave it at home in favor of the 16-35 if I only take camera and one lens.

Pair it with a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 and you have a great light weight travel kit.

BTW I also have the 70-200 2.8 IS II, and 85 1.8, but the 16-35 is my most used lens. The 70-200 is mostly used for events where I can't get close.

16-35 gets my vote, but you should have something longer for other times.

PS... these are paired with my 5DII


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Jul 28, 2011)

Depends on what you shoot again (i.e. low light for 2.8).

But another factor besides price is filter thread for the typical screw in filter.
If you find yourself wanting to use full ND filters to blur or slow motion good luck finding one with a 82mm filter thread greater than 3+ stops!

The 17-40 is good enough if your primarily goal is just landscapes.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 28, 2011)

Canon 14-24 said:


> Depends on what you shoot again (i.e. low light for 2.8).
> 
> But another factor besides price is filter thread for the typical screw in filter.
> If you find yourself wanting to use full ND filters to blur or slow motion good luck finding one with a 82mm filter thread greater than 3+ stops!
> ...



http://www.singh-ray.com/table.html


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Jul 28, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> http://www.singh-ray.com/table.html



None of those are for an 82mm ring mount, just as a matter of preference I would prefer a ring mount over those 4x6 cards or bulky filter holders.


----------



## jhanken (Jul 28, 2011)

I have been contemplating this dilemma myself, and I am leaning towards getting the 17-40 based on two factors in the pro column for the 17-40: 1) cost is much lower than the 16-35mm f-2.8 and 2) better reported image quality. For most applications, the 4.0 aperture is going to be perfectly fine in a very wide angle lens. 

The reviews I have read, including Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/17-40mm.htm) and Digital Picture (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) like the image quality, portability and price of the 17-40mm. About the only common situation I can think of that you would need the extra f-stop of hte 16-35mm would maybe be concert photos.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Jul 28, 2011)

only time i wish i had one is for those late night 30 sec exposure milky way shots


----------



## motorhead (Jul 28, 2011)

I chose the EF 16-35 to compliment my 24-70 rather than replace it, but I have to say that after my 100-400 it's my least used lens. That's because I don't naturally think wide angle when contemplating compositions.

It's a nice lens and does come in handy when otherwise I'd be forced into stitching shots together after the event. But it was not cheap and I don't think I'm getting full value from it. It's not my carry about lens, the 24-70 fills that role.


----------



## bycostello (Jul 28, 2011)

all horses for courses.... 16-35 good landscape lens.. 24-70 nice versatile lens you can use for landscapes and portraits...

that said on a cropped sensor 35mm is 56mm, so just getting you into the portrait area...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2011)

Canon 14-24 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.singh-ray.com/table.html
> ...



Look more carefully. Here, I'll help - Singh-Ray Mor-Slo 5-stop ND filter, available in 77mm and 82mm standard or thin mount.


----------

