# 16-35mm f/4 IS vs 24-70mm f/4 IS - First Lens for 7D MkII



## TheLaxPlayer (May 14, 2015)

Hello folks, I am looking into getting a newer camera for myself and my wife for general photography / pictures of our son. Usage will be indoor and outdoor, but more focused on taking pictures of people than landscapes.

The only SLR we have experience with is our Nikon D40, for which we have the 18-55mm kit lens and a 35mm f/1.8 prime. We plan to move to Canon due to the better lens lineup and pricing, which brings me to my question.

A 7D Mark II will be our first Canon camera, so we have no Canon mount lenses. We're primarily focused on EF lenses as we may move up to a FF in a few years and would prefer to stick with weather sealed lenses, which I believe means we would be restricted to the L lineup.

So if you were buying your first lens, not expecting to buy another for at least a few months, would you go for a 16-35mm f/4 IS or 24-70mm f/4 IS? 

Thanks!


----------



## candc (May 14, 2015)

There are better lenses for apsc than those. If you think you want a ff camera then I would just get it now. The price on the 6d and the 5diii are in this same range as 7dii. Don't forget about the 70d, its a good camera at a really reasonable price.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 14, 2015)

You mentioned two lenses of high quality and moderate price, but for very different uses.

Canon 16-35 F4 IS will be better in tight environments, allowing framing whole body of people, but not suitable for pictures of the head and shoulders. In that case, I suggest complementary with the new 50mm F1.8 STM which will hit stores in the coming days.

Canon 24-70 F4 IS is more versatile for almost everything, but not for full-body photos of people in tight environments.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (May 14, 2015)

candc said:


> There are better lenses for apsc than those. If you think you want a ff camera then I would just get it now. The price on the 6d and the 5diii are in this same range as 7dii. Don't forget about the 70d, its a good camera at a really reasonable price.



The 5D Mark III is $750 more and at this point I would rather spend the extra money on quality glass if the $750 was in the budget at the moment (which it's not).

I'm concerned that the 6D AF will be too finicky for action shots and especially video. I would also expect the 6D resale value to drop significantly with the rumors pointing at a Mark II version next year.

I don't expect the 70D to be any cheaper than the 7D Mark II over the course of 3-5 years assuming we sell the body when we upgrade, so there isn't much incentive there.

I guess the obvious answer to my OP is that I need to mount the 18-55 to my D40 and see if I would rather be limited to nothing longer than 35mm or nothing shorter than 24mm, but I was hoping for other's thoughts on the subject in case I'm missing something.


----------



## bereninga (May 14, 2015)

If you're set on getting one of these two lenses, if I were you I probably would pick the 24-70 f4 since the 16-35 f4 is mainly for landscape.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (May 14, 2015)

The 16-35mm isn't actually that wide on APS-C, so these are both pretty much "normal" zooms. I guess I need to redefine my question a bit.

Besides the obvious difference in focal range, does anybody have input on any other differences which might make one of these better than the other assuming a lot of the picture taking will occur within the focal range overlap? Meaning, if you were taking the majority of your pictures in the 24-35mm focal length range, which would you choose?

Thanks


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 14, 2015)

I can't speak for the 24-70 F4 as I use the 24-70 F2.8 L V2.
When I used APSC cameras I had the Canon 17-40 L and the Canon 24-105 L IS. For my uses I found the 17-40 focal range more useful. Now I use full frame and the 16-35 F4 L IS and 24-70 F2.8 L V2 I find the 24-70 range more useful.
Personally I would go for the 16-35 F4 L IS. It is markedly better than my, much loved 17-40, and will give you a focal range of roughly 25-56mm - which I find more useful than 38-112 (24-70) with the smaller sensors. When/if you move to full frame then the 16-35 becomes a pretty wide angle lens, which I like, but you will need a longer lens on top. If you can live with the 38mm minimum field of view that the 24-70 offers (I can't) then the 24-70 may be the cheaper option in the long run.
Only you can decide which focal range suits you best.


----------



## candc (May 15, 2015)

well if you have your mind made up on the 7dii and one of those lenses then i would recommend the 16-35. its a very good lens and a useful range on aps-c.


----------



## rs (May 15, 2015)

While 16-35 on crop is a little limited at the long end for a one lens setup, I find a 24-70 lens on crop missing a much more important part of the range. 

If macro is a requirement, the 24-70 is the obvious one lens choice. 

From an optical point of view, this tool may help you decide:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=963&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=823&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=963&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## cid (May 18, 2015)

Depend on your photo style - I was using 24-70 f/2.8 II on 60D for about a year and it was very nice combo. Now I use both 16-35 and 24-70 range on FF and I have to say if I was about to choose one of these ranges from scratch it would be 16-35.

On crop the situation is bit different but as many other have stated - 16-35 is probably more useful on crop too, but if I were you I would maybe wait a little bit and go for FF and get some cashback on lens and/or body


----------



## Coldhands (May 18, 2015)

I own both of these lenses and its tough to see any difference in IQ. They both have the latest IS, great build quality and fast auto-focus. They are both weather sealed, although theoretically the 16-35 requires a front filter to complete the sealing. If size/weight are important it may be worth noting that the 24-70 is noticeably smaller and lighter then the 16-35. Also, as mentioned by others, the 24-70 has a macro mode as well, which is useful for close-up photography. 

As for which zoom range is more useful, it all depends on your subjects but as you say it's mostly for shooting people, I would go for the 24-70 as the longer focal lengths will allow you to have a shallower DoF.


----------



## eric3 (May 26, 2015)

I have the 16-35 and have used it on my 7d. It is a good all around lens on apsc and in tighter spaces it will work great. It is short on the long end so i would say the 24-70 because it of the extra reach.


----------



## Lee Jay (May 27, 2015)

Want the truth?

Don't do that. Don't buy full-frame lenses just because you might, someday, buy a full-frame camera. Buy what you need. Lenses hold their value pretty well, especially if you buy on sale, used or refurbished. You might even be able to get all your money back on a lens.

There are two real options for me for a "standard zoom" for EF-s - good light and bad light.

The bad light lenses are the 17-55/2.8IS or the Sigma 18-35/1.8. The 17-55 is better for range and stationary subjects. The Sigma is better for moving subjects.
The good light lenses are the 18-135STM and the 15-85IS. The 18-135 is better for range and video, the 15-85 is better for wider angle and faster focusing.

All of those lenses are good enough optically that the optics aren't going to limit your photography.

If you choose to buy a full-frame body later, figure out then what you're going to keep and what you're going to sell.


----------



## candc (May 27, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Want the truth?
> 
> Don't do that. Don't buy full-frame lenses just because you might, someday, buy a full-frame camera. Buy what you need. Lenses hold their value pretty well, especially if you buy on sale, used or refurbished. You might even be able to get all your money back on a lens.
> 
> ...



And the sigma 18-35 works of ff. Its about as good as the 35 art.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (May 27, 2015)

I ordered the 7D Mark 2, the 24-70 F/4L, and the 50mm F/1.8 STM. The 17-55 F/2.8 didn't really make sense to me for more money than these two lenses combined. I know there would have been a few advantages of the 17-55 but for me they were outweighed pretty heavily by the advantages of what I did order. I also may jump to FF sooner if the 5D Mark IV rumors are well founded.

The Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 is APS-C only. More importantly, I would rather stick with Canon lenses for the long term support and in camera corrections. The Sigma is also more expensive than what I paid for the 24-70 plus 50 STM.

Thanks


----------



## Bernd FMC (May 27, 2015)

You have ordered the Body and Lenses, ok - it will be ok for you.

I also would recommend an other Way to Start with APSC an Future 24x36mm Sensor.

7DII with Kitlens for general use ( 17-55 STM ) and an L-Series Telephoto like the 70-200 f4 L IS.

But it seems you dont look for Telephoto that much.

The 16-35 f4 L IS is an fine Lens, but for APSC not very usefull ( my 2ct´s ).

I also assume new interessting wide Lenses for "FF" in the near Future - including a new 35 L f1.4.

The Range of 24-70 is mostly used by myself - on 24x36mm Sensor, for People often Tele like 135mm.
The 85mm f 1.8 USM would be nice for your needs too.

On the other Side - it is nothing wrong with your Selection.

Greetings Bernd ( with bad English - i knew  )


----------



## ReggieABrown (May 27, 2015)

I've seen in several forums where people say "don't buy a full frame lens for a crop sensor camera". My question is, why not? Why did Canon make the 7d Mark ii one of the toughest weather sealed bodies if it wasn't meant to be used with weather sealed lens, which weather sealing is only on "full frame" lens (as of now)? The apsc specific lens ARE NOT weather sealed. Aren't all the 50mm prime lens made for full frame sensors? Yet on a crop sensor it's recommended for portrait work. 

I say get the lens that makes you happy. My preference of lens are Canon L lens on my 7d Mark ii. Maybe it's a placebo effect, but my L lens out perform the dedicated apsc lens by a large margin; with its color reproduction, sharpness, and over all performance. And also, you can use those red rings as a marketing tool! Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Bernd FMC (May 27, 2015)

It´s all ok, with it, but you loose wide Angle, an get heavy(er) Lenses.

So i would choose an Wide to Standard Crop Zoom with L/FF Tele.
Later look for some Nice fast Primes for EF ( non"s" ) .
Selling the Croplens with the Body in the Future.

Greetings 

Bernd


----------



## bluenoser1993 (May 27, 2015)

From personal experience I agree that you should buy lenses for the camera you have. I started wit ha 7D and made a lot of lens decisions based on my plan to upgrade to a 5D3 when prices came down before the IV came out. Well I bought a 7DII recently instead. I went with a 24-105L and 10-22 combination and also added a 70-200 2.8 II IS. The 24-105 never got used at the long end because the 70-200 would be mounted instead. I don't really do ultrawide stuff, but still found 24 not wide enough and was constantly switching between 24-105 and 10-22. 

I bought a 17-55 2.8 last year and haven't used either of the other two lenses since. I think it is time to list them for sale. 17-55 sells at very reasonable price used. 

Since you also purchased the 50 1.8, I would have recommended the Sigma 18-35 1.8 like someone else did. That would be a great combo. I also recently got a good deal on a fast 50 and kind of wish I had gone with the sigma option, but I'm still happy with the 17-55.

You can probably still change the order, or return it. I'd really consider a lens starting at 17 or 18mm as the minimum for the 7DII. No matter what, you'll always second guess, so the main thing is use what you've picked and enjoy the great new camera you just purchased.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (May 27, 2015)

ReggieABrown said:


> I've seen in several forums where people say "don't buy a full frame lens for a crop sensor camera". My question is, why not? Why did Canon make the 7d Mark ii one of the toughest weather sealed bodies if it wasn't meant to be used with weather sealed lens, which are "full frame"lens only (as of now)? The apsc specific lens ARE NOT weather sealed. Isn't all the 50mm lens full frame lens? Yet on a crop sensor it's recommended for portrait work.
> 
> I say get the lens that makes you happy. My preference of lens are Canon L lens on my 7d Mark ii. Maybe it's a placebo effect, but my L lens out perform the dedicated apsc lens by a large margin; with its color reproduction, sharpness, and over all performance. And also, you can use those red rings as a marketing tool! Just my 2 cents.



Agreed, I'm pleased that the 24-70 F/4L is weather sealed whereas the 17-55 F/2.8 isn't. Also, if the focal length, cost, and weight of the lens is acceptable you avoid corner softness and vignetting by going with the FF lens over a APS-C lens on a APS-C body.

If there was a weather sealed EF-S 24-70 that was F/4 or faster with similar optical quality for less money I'd understand the argument better but there just isn't one...


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (May 27, 2015)

bluenoser1993 said:


> You can probably still change the order, or return it. I'd really consider a lens starting at 17 or 18mm as the minimum for the 7DII. No matter what, you'll always second guess, so the main thing is use what you've picked and enjoy the great new camera you just purchased.



I appreciate the input, but I have a crop body Nikon now and usually use a 35mm prime. I rarely need anything wider. I also have a 18-55 with it, and find it's rare that I ever use wider than 24mm... I don't think I'm going to miss it, but if it becomes a problem I'll pick up the 10-18.


----------



## pdirestajr (May 27, 2015)

Or you could have just bought a weather sealed Pentax with a weather sealed kit lens for under 1k that is better than any of Canon's APS-C cameras. DOH!


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (May 27, 2015)

pdirestajr said:


> Or you could have just bought a weather sealed Pentax with a weather sealed kit lens for under 1k *that is better than any of Canon's APS-C cameras.* DOH!



I will, as soon as they make one. After handling Pentax, Olympus, and Sony cameras I'm pretty sure I could take a nap while they're trying to autofocus.

If I were interested in landscape photography maybe things would be different, but about 90% of the time it will be toddler photography. He's a quick little guy!


----------



## bholliman (May 27, 2015)

My suggestion would be to pick up a EF-S 17-55/2.8 or EF-S 15-85 as a general purpose zoom for the 7DII. I've owned both lenses for use on a 550D and 7D and loved them. Since you are primarily doing people photography, the 17-55 is probably the better selection. Personally, I found the 24+ zoom range too limiting on a APS-C body, I often like to go wider.

The 16-35/4 IS is an excellent lens, but wouldn't be my first choice on a 7DII for people photography. I think the faster maximum aperture and greater zoom range of the 17-55/2.8 will serve you well. 55mm on the long end is equivalent to 88mm on a full frame body and is a very nice portrait focal length.

We have a toddler at home and I certainly agree you need a fast AF system to keep up with them. I've owned a 6D for over 2 years, and love it for landscape and other non-action photography. But, I recently purchased a 5DIII for the primary purpose of keeping up with our toddler and his friends at play. The faster AF (similar to the 7DII) does a great job of nailing focus of fast, randomly moving kids!

Enjoy the new equipment. The little ones grow up very quickly, so getting good pictures now is very important.


----------



## mpeeps (May 28, 2015)

I am glad that when I got serious about digital photography with the purchase of a 7D, I invested in all EF lenses, mostly L lenses. Other than springing for a 10-22, a great uwa on crop sensor, I knew that at one point I would go full frame. Now that I shoot with a 6D and 5DIII, it is all paying off.


----------



## tcmatthews (May 28, 2015)

I would have gone with the Tamron 24-70f2.8 VC. I found f4 is not fast enough in standard zoom on a crop unless shooting landscape. After using a Tamron 28-75f2.8 I found IS is necessary for most indoor use without a flash. Unfortunately Canon does not a 24-70f2.8L IS. 

I ended up buying the 15-85IS but if the Tamron was available I would have bought it.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (May 28, 2015)

bholliman said:


> My suggestion would be to pick up a EF-S 17-55/2.8 or EF-S 15-85 as a general purpose zoom for the 7DII. I've owned both lenses for use on a 550D and 7D and loved them. Since you are primarily doing people photography, the 17-55 is probably the better selection. Personally, I found the 24+ zoom range too limiting on a APS-C body, I often like to go wider.
> 
> The 16-35/4 IS is an excellent lens, but wouldn't be my first choice on a 7DII for people photography. I think the faster maximum aperture and greater zoom range of the 17-55/2.8 will serve you well. 55mm on the long end is equivalent to 88mm on a full frame body and is a very nice portrait focal length.
> 
> ...



The 6D was the camera we wanted earlier on in our search but I think the superior AF of the 7DII will make it the better choice for us right now. The 17-55 f/2.8 was in the running but we decided we'd rather have he 24-70 f/4 as it's better sealed against dust and weather, better IS, adds macro mode, and my wife preferred the extra reach over the extra on the wide end. It was also cheaper to get the 24-70 and the new 50, which also lets us have better isolation if that's the priority at hand.

That said, if they ever add IS to the 24-70 f/2.8 I'll be refreshing CPW like a madman waiting for a deal.


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (May 28, 2015)

tcmatthews said:


> I would have gone with the Tamron 24-70f2.8 VC. I found f4 is not fast enough in standard zoom on a crop unless shooting landscape. After using a Tamron 28-75f2.8 I found IS is necessary for most indoor use without a flash. Unfortunately Canon does not a 24-70f2.8L IS.
> 
> I ended up buying the 15-85IS but if the Tamron was available I would have bought it.



I'm a bit gun shy on Tamron and Sigma due to less consistent resale values. If Canon adds a 24-70 f/2.8L IS I will likely pick one up but between the Canon offerings today I think the IS matters more to us than the larger aperture on what will basically be our walk around lens, especially given the $1000 price difference between the two. We'll have the 50mm f/1.8 STM on hand for when we're more worried about subject isolation as we'll.


----------



## Luds34 (May 28, 2015)

TheLaxPlayer said:


> Hello folks, I am looking into getting a newer camera for myself and my wife for general photography / pictures of our son. Usage will be indoor and outdoor, but more focused on taking pictures of people than landscapes.
> 
> The only SLR we have experience with is our Nikon D40, for which we have the 18-55mm kit lens and a 35mm f/1.8 prime. We plan to move to Canon due to the better lens lineup and pricing, which brings me to my question.
> 
> ...



A good friend of mine owns all 3 (7D2, 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/4 IS). He really enjoys the the 16-35 on the 7D as a "normal" zoom lens, even if it doesn't have much reach. We both picked up a 6D a few months back during the ebay sales and where I've been playing around with the 6D alot (my other camera is a 70D) my friend keeps going back to his 7D mark II. The 16-35 doesn't physically extend during zooming which is a small benefit in my humble opinion.

Just my 2 cents, but I would not find 24mm wide enough on crop. Have you considered the 15-85? I picked one up a year ago for ~$400 used. Since you are looking to resell down the road maybe buy the lens(es) used?


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 28, 2015)

TheLaxPlayer said:


> The 16-35mm isn't actually that wide on APS-C, so these are both pretty much "normal" zooms. I guess I need to redefine my question a bit.
> 
> Besides the obvious difference in focal range, does anybody have input on any other differences which might make one of these better than the other assuming a lot of the picture taking will occur within the focal range overlap? Meaning, if you were taking the majority of your pictures in the 24-35mm focal length range, which would you choose?
> 
> Thanks


You can try the comparison tools at www.the-digital-picture.com but in the 24-35mm range the absoloute winner is the 16-35mm f4L IS.
I had the 24-70mm FL with my 7D(I) and never got really much use until I moved to full frame 5D3 where the 24-70mm FL really shines.
Sigma has for APS-C cameras the 18-35mm f/1.8 which is a fantastic lens and can give you an idea of the usefulness of the 16-35mm in APS-C cameras


----------



## Jim Roof (May 31, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Want the truth?
> 
> Don't do that. Don't buy full-frame lenses just because you might, someday, buy a full-frame camera. Buy what you need. Lenses hold their value pretty well, especially if you buy on sale, used or refurbished. You might even be able to get all your money back on a lens.
> 
> ...



And, coming from the other side...

Glass is good for 10 times longer than any camera body. I have heard many people say the one thing to never skimp on is lenses. When I was shooting 4x5 film I had a set of lenses that lasted me for over 20 years with only one upgrade along the way as I went through 5 4x5 bodies and systems.

I would encourage anyone who is serious about photography to move away from smaller sensors and into full frame. The world of exceptional glass that is available for anyone with a smaller sensor then becomes completely relevant and appreciated.


----------



## Sabaki (May 31, 2015)

Here's another one of those 2c opinions people throw about. 

My buying cycle for my gear list is still another 2-3 years away. A big part of my buying philosophy is future proofing. 

Sure you could buy those EF-S lenses but their role in your kit bag seems more stop gap than anything else. Get the 16-35, use it as a general purpose lens for now and once you have your 6Dii someday, you can use it in its full frame glory. 

The 24-70 f/4.0 is a good lens but I'll make an assumption that you will always wonder about the f/2.8 mkii version. 

I agree with what you've purchased, just make sure you don't have buyers regret 6 months or a year down the line due to not future proofing your purchases.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 1, 2015)

OK, I skimmed this thread and... eh. Honestly I'm on my third Sunday afternoon beer as I sit here on CR procrastinating calling the cable company to complain about my rates being too high and the inevitable fight over a better deal. But I know everyone on CR is anxiously awaiting my input on this so I guess I'll toss in my 2c...

IMHO - I like the OP's style and I think his posts are cool. He and his wife are very blessed to have a happy healthy and quick toddler to photograph. I think the 7D-II will be a perfect camera to shoot the little guy (?) with to get him in action shots. Also, the choices of lens will work great. However, in my experience with crop vs. FF, the wider the better. At least that's usually my journalistic style. So go ahead and pick up the 16-35 ASAP. I agree with the other poster that on a crop sensor, the 16-35 will be more "normal" and useful.

But it sounds like you (the OP) are going to buy the 5D Mark IV pretty soon anyway after it comes out based on reading between the lines in your posts. FF is really what you want. And that's great! That way, both mom and dad will have their own camera to shoot with and hopefully the busy toddler won't have to suffer through a trial separation due to the fighting over who gets to use which body! Because I own the 7D-II and the 5D3 and they are both superb. The 5D-IV will more than likely be another stellar 5D body once Canon irons out the inevitable kinks in the first year.

Now if I haven't baited this thread enough, let me know but I figure this will be good for at least another 5 - 10 posts in response and the OP likely can't resist either! Bwahh Ha Ha Haaa!


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (Jun 1, 2015)

RustyTheGeek said:


> OK, I skimmed this thread and... eh. Honestly I'm on my third Sunday afternoon beer as I sit here on CR procrastinating calling the cable company to complain about my rates being too high and the inevitable fight over a better deal. But I know everyone on CR is anxiously awaiting my input on this so I guess I'll toss in my 2c...
> 
> IMHO - I like the OP's style and I think his posts are cool. He and his wife are very blessed to have a happy healthy and quick toddler to photograph. I think the 7D-II will be a perfect camera to shoot the little guy (?) with to get him in action shots. Also, the choices of lens will work great. However, in my experience with crop vs. FF, the wider the better. At least that's usually my journalistic style. So go ahead and pick up the 16-35 ASAP. I agree with the other poster that on a crop sensor, the 16-35 will be more "normal" and useful.
> 
> ...



I'll take the bait 

I've only had the 7DII and 24-70 for a couple days now but so far I'm finding that most of our shots are in the 35-70mm range, so I guess wide angle just isn't too useful for us right now. I am very impressed with the autofocus on the 7DII. It's easy to tell it where to focus, but it's almost pointless... the camera is very good at determining what I'm trying to photograph and quickly nails the correct focus.

This could obviously change but at the moment I don't see why we'd move to FF in the future. That was the original plan but it seems that if the 7DII is good enough in low light (it is) the only real advantage of FF would be if I wanted a fast wide angle lens. I really don't... For now I'll enjoy the 24-70 on the 7DII. I like the focal length better than the 17-55, f/4 is usually fast enough, and there is very little distortion or vignetting on the cropped sensor. The 7DII (or III or IV, who knows) should also be pretty ideal to work with a 70-200 f/2.8 if the little guy gets into sports in a few years.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jun 1, 2015)

*LaxPlayer*, sounds like you found a winner! However, don't forget that your 24-70 is really a 38-112 lens on that camera. And that's a great range too! But as time moves forward, I think you might find a need for a wider lens once you want to get more of the environment and other kids in the shot. For instance, indoor parties and group events at the zoo, the park and several moving kids at a friend's house. Once you find yourself backing up into people, walls, furniture and holding the camera up over your head to get as much in the shot as possible, you'll know it's time to get a FF body or invest in a EF-S 10-22 lens (which = about 16-35). In addition, you can be more creative with a wide lens as you come in closer to the subject and offset their face with what's around them.

I'm editing this later because I also meant to say that the EF 16-35 L (2.8 v 1 or 2 or the f/4) lenses are all great lenses. I own both the f/2.8-1 and f/4 IS and the 16-35 is my favorite lens on FF or Crop. You don't have to get the EF-S 10-22 unless you want the maximum width from your 7D. The 16-35 would still give you more width than the 24-70. (Obviously.)

The 7D-II is a wonderful body and I'm glad you like it. I certainly like mine and hopefully as you get more comfortable with it you will post a few of your favorite pics here! Have a great summer!!


----------



## Infraspace (Jun 1, 2015)

Id really recommend the 16-35. I had a 24-70 2.8 for a while on my 600D. Replaced it for a 16-35 f2.8 and have not been regretting my decision. I picked up a 7D2 about 1 and a half week ago. And it lives with my 16-35. You can extend your reach with multiple lenses later. I got the 16-35, the 18-55 from my 600D, a 50 1.4, a 70-300 4-5.6 (Which is more or less useless) and a fisheye. I almost only use the 16-35. So as a first lens i would reccomend that


----------



## TheLaxPlayer (Jun 1, 2015)

Maybe I'll need to zoom out more when he gets taller 

I like the 24-70 for now.


----------



## ReggieABrown (Jun 14, 2015)

For what it's worth, I'm not a "lens reviewer" but I "reviewed" the 16-35 f4L lens with it mounted on a 7d Mark ii.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ_7MPETbGw


----------



## HighLowISO (Jun 24, 2015)

ReggieABrown said:


> For what it's worth, I'm not a "lens reviewer" but I "reviewed" the 16-35 f4L lens with it mounted on a 7d Mark ii.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ_7MPETbGw


Excellent review. Thanks!


----------



## Arty (Jun 24, 2015)

I would rather have the 24-105L on crop than either the 16-35 or the 24-70 F4IS. Frankly, in many instances, I would prefer to use a 35F2IS on crop or full frame, especially for low light use. You can pick up the 24-105L and the 35F2IS for little more than the price of one of the other lenses, and get greater overall utility.


----------



## mangobutter (Jul 1, 2015)

Hands down for lenses from wide to standard, I would go for lenses *designed* for crop sensors. If you are using wide to standard EF (full frame) lenses on a crop body, you are wasting your money and carrying extra weight for no reason. You are also getting softer pictures and slower speeds (especially when using 2.8 lenses)

So for a crop, the Sigma 18-35 hands down. It will act as a 2.8 lens does on full frame. It's image circle is optimized for crop sensors so you aren't paying extra money for glass you won't and can't use on crop. 

Go for EF-S (modern ones) or other lenses produced specifically for crop sensors. This is how you maximize everything. Money, lightness, IQ.


----------



## Famateur (Jul 1, 2015)

TheLaxPlayer,

As I've read this thread, it sounds to me like you've thought this through very well, have an informed understanding of the tradeoffs and made a choice you're happy with. Well done. 

For what it's worth, I have a 70D and started with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS. It's a fantastic lens, but since purchasing the EF 24-70F4L IS and EF 70-200 F4L IS six months ago (each with $200 rebates), I've used the 17-55 all of...once. I'll probably sell the 17-55 to get a 16-35 F4 when I get closer to switching to full frame (or just to subsidize the full frame body).

The 24-70 stays attached in my camera bag, but I am frequently switching it out for the 70-200F4 IS. I've been absolutely thrilled with both. I thought I wanted the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, but unless/until I'm shooting for money more often or doing indoor sports, I just don't see the point of the extra cost and weight. The 70-200 F4 IS is plenty sharp. I'm happy with the F4 bokeh on both, and that'll just get better when I move to full frame.

Anyway, enjoy the new camera and lens!

PS: It's interesting to note that you're pleased enough with the 7DII that your move to full frame is less certain. I've wondered if I really "need" to move to full frame for similar reasons, but I think I will anyway. Not sure if you can relate to this comparison, but I thought I was perfectly happy with 9MM for years...until I tried a .45. Like most things, there are advantages to each, but after years of .45, I can't imagine going back to 9MM.


----------



## MiamiC70 (Jul 2, 2015)

Famateur said:


> TheLaxPlayer,
> 
> As I've read this thread, it sounds to me like you've thought this through very well, have an informed understanding of the tradeoffs and made a choice you're happy with. Well done.
> 
> ...



Same lenses I have picked up for my 70D. 16-35mm, 24-70mm & 70-200mm all in f/4


----------



## jd7 (Jul 2, 2015)

Famateur said:


> For what it's worth, I have a 70D and started with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS. It's a fantastic lens, but since purchasing the EF 24-70F4L IS and EF 70-200 F4L IS six months ago (each with $200 rebates), I've used the 17-55 all of...once. I'll probably sell the 17-55 to get a 16-35 F4 when I get closer to switching to full frame (or just to subsidize the full frame body).



Just another $0.02 opinion ...

My experience was almost the opposite of Famateur's. For ages I used a Sigma 24-70 2.8 on a crop camera before eventually picking up a second-hand 17-55 2.8 after reading so many good reports about it on CR. After that, the 24-70 gathered dust until I switched to a FF body. I felt like the 17-55 range made "more sense" on crop, giving you the ability to go from wide(ish) to long normal (short telephoto?), and I felt like the combination of 17-55 and 70-200 made a much more versatile pair than a 24-70 and 70-200. Generally, I would agree with the others above recommending that for wide to normal focal lengths for a crop body, you are better off with lenses designed for crop.

That said, each to their own of course. And one thing I do think 24-70 on a crop body is good for is portraits - which seems to be the OP's primary use case.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 2, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Here's another one of those 2c opinions people throw about.
> 
> My buying cycle for my gear list is still another 2-3 years away. A big part of my buying philosophy is future proofing.
> 
> ...



The EF-S lenses are so affordable though! And better than they're given credit for - I kind of wish I'd gotten the 7D2 instead of my 5D3 just to be able to continue using my 18-135 STM (and may just get the SL2 when it comes out). I'd also, then, be looking at a used (~$200) 55-250 STM instead of the (~$1000 used) 70-300L. I couldn't resist the FF siren's call, though. I just wish there were a 7-8x zoom for FF on par with the 18-135 STM.


----------

