Canon 16-35 f2.8L mk2 or 24-105f4L ????

paulkdye

paulkdye

Suspended / Banned
Messages
22
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey, I was wondering if anyone has had experience of either or preferably both of these lenses? I am having my first days off of the year at the end of May and am going to Geneva so would like to come back with some nice shots. Will hopefully wonder round the city, head to the mountains, eat, drink and who knows what else there is to do there. Currently only have the 18-55 EFS kit lens in this neighbourhood and would like to upgrade. The current budget will only allow for one of them.
I'm using a 350d at the moment but am thinking about a full frame upgrade next year.
I've searched the net, read loads of reviews but I still can't decide!? Any thoughts are very welcome.
 
If you want wide angle I'd go for the 17-40mm L.

f/2.8 isn't that useful at ultra wide focal lengths, unless you shoot a lot of church interiors :) and if you're considering the 24-105mm then f/4 must be an acceptable maximum aperture to you.

Apparently the IQ (which is pretty good BTW) is on a par with the 16-35mm. The extra cash is all about the larger aperture.

A.
 
I do alot of low light shooting so 2.8 glass is a must, the 24-105 was laggy in this enviroment even on the 1D.

It depends if you want an UW or not, personally on the crop sensor of the 50D something like the sigma 10-20 or canon EF-s 10-22 may be a better option, it depends if its UW you want though.
 
They are two completely different lenses for completely different purposes. The 16-35 being ultra wode and the 24-105 being more of a 'walkabout' range, and slow.
 
The 16-35 isn't going to be very wide on a croped sensor body but if you can live with it until you move to full frame then fine.
As already suggested if you want wider then a super wide angle lens would be ideal.
The 24-105L IS is a stunning lens and cropped sensor body you are looking at 38-168.
I've not much chance to use it yet but I am really pleased with the results.

A couple of test shots.

4512201404_8a041db712.jpg


4502997132_c1e7d146c8_o.jpg
 
Thanks to everyone for the replies so far, really appreciated. I guess at the moment I am looking for a walk about lens but wasn't sure if 24 was wide enough on a crop. Would like to get creative with the UWA but that might have to come lower down the priority list. As far as low light stuff i only do shots when i'm with the family and i stick the nifty fifty on. TBH i was hoping the 24-105 would be ok indoors (maybe with the flash then?) since i normally step down a little anyway?
I'm leaning to the 24-105 for the trip then....
 
I'd tend to agree with the above, have you also looked at the 17-40f4L and the 24-70f2.8L? as they are more matched to the 16-35f2.8L and the 24-105f4L.

I used the 17-40f4L as my main wide lens on crop sensor cameras (I tended to use the 50mm as my main lens) and it is a great wide angle lens on full frame. Aside from price it is also lighter than the 16-35f2.8L and it is a cracking landscape lens.
 
fastworldimages said:
considered the 24-70 if you wanted 2.8?
Click to expand...

On crop (as the OP has a 350D), I would be considering the 17-55 IS USM. Constant f/2.8 aperture and 3-stop IS.

Having owned a 17-55 when I had my 40D, and a 24-105 and 17-40 now I have FF, I would go for the 17-55 on crop every time. The IQ of the 17-55 is as good as the L glass in my opinion.

With what you save over the 16-35 you could get a 55-250 IS to cover off the telephoto end on a budget. Optically no where near 17-55 (or the other two) but 'a shot' is better than 'no shot'.
 
Pick up a Tokina 12-24mm along with 24-105mm. That way you can't lose and you can sell on UWA when you get back if you don't want it. 16-35mm II is so so at 16mm even crop (unless I saw a bad copy).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top