16-35 F2.8 L II vs 24-70 F2.8 L II Lens Decision HELP!!

[Langers]

Hi Guys and Girls,

The time has come to buy new glass and I need some advice.

Now let me start off by saying I will end up with both of these awesome lens's eventually, however I can only afford one at the moment.

I can't decide between the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II and the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II.

I mostly shoot landscapes, seascapes, starscapes and panoramic's at the moment. I am also open to other lens suggestions with the proviso that I am looking for the best money can buy, I want to future proof myself and not have to upgrade in the future.

For a future dedicated travel lens I will be purchasing the Canon 24-105 f/4L.

These lens's will be getting used on a 450D, 1100D, 5DmkIII and the 7DmkII (when it finally arrives).

I have done countless hours of research and investigation on both of these lens's and the non cannon equivalents and have reached an impasse. It seems like every review I read has me spinning in smaller and smaller circles.

If anyone on here has any real world advice it would be greatly, greatly appreciated,

signed....... dazed and confused!

[basketballfreak6]

if landscapes is your main concern definitely go for 16-35 II, which is quite a bit wider than the 24-70 II, but optically speaking the 24-70 II is far superior

which goes back, do you really need the f2.8? in majority of the situations when shooting landscapes you are stopping down to f8-11 anyway for dof with the exception of astro, the new 16-35 f/4 IS is superior compared to the 16-35 f/2.8 II in every way, including price, i just picked up one myself about a month ago to replace my 17-40 and is loving it to bits, unless you really need the 2.8 to me there is no reason to go for the 16-35 2.8 II over the new 16-35 f4 IS

[Langers]

Cheers,
I mainly wanted the 2.8 for starscapes. I live out in the country and the stars are amazing out here, my nearest neighbour is over 5km's away so there is zero light pollution.
Now you have me wondering if I should get the new f/4 IS for landscapes and get something like the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 for starscapes.

I am a firm believer that you can never have to many lens's . And I am trying to get the best optical clarity that I can buy, don't want to have to sell off lens's to upgrade again.

Thanks again for the advice.

[basketballfreak6]

no worries mate, FWIW, my recent astro photos were all shot with the 16-35 f4 IS, if that helps with your decision at all

[Langers]

No easier, but thanks again. Think I might take your advice and go the f/4 IS. Mix that with another fast UWA and see what happens, should save enough to grab a second hand Tokina. And we can always bump out the shutter speed for the astro shots right .

[basketballfreak6]

maybe 16-35 f4 IS + samyang 14 2.8? lol

[William W]

Choosing only between the EF 16 to 35 F/2.8L MkII USM and the EF 24 to 70F/2.8 L MkII USM and considering that you stated that you will ALSO buy the EF24 to 105 F/4 L IS USM - then it is logical for you to buy the 16 to 35 first, because in terms of FL you have 24 to 70 covered for the time being.

Secondly, (at a guess), it is more likely the price of the 24 to 70/2.8L MkII will drop as time passes as it now is a relatively new lens.

***

However you specifically mention:

I mainly wanted the 2.8 for starscapes. . . I am trying to get the best optical clarity that I can buy, don't want to have to sell off lens's to upgrade again.

And in this regard, the EF 24 F/1.4L MkII USM, is presently the best Canon Lens for that job: becasue of both intrinsic optical quality and also the necessary lens speed (maximum available aperture) to keep ISO at a minimum for the designated minimum Shutter Speed for the shot.

WW

[CandidTown]

16-35f2.8 is a great lens, but so is 17-40f4 at half the price.
f2.8 may already be too slow for starscapes anyway. You may be better off with something like canon 24f1.4 or even samyang 24f1.4 at a fraction of the price.

the canon 24-70 is again an excellent lens, but so is tamron alternative at less than half price, and you get IS as a bonus.

You mentioned canon 24-105... again ... very useful lens, but you can look at the sigma alternative which is very good also.

I am talking from a very practical point of view. I own the 17-40 and the Tamron 24-70 and they work for me. I may shoot with a Canon camera, but my lenses come from all over the shop.
The new tamron and sigma lenses offer a very good value for money.

[Langers]

Thanks for the replies.

At this point in time I am looking for the BEST I can get, not cheap alternatives that are nice but not as good, if however there is a cheaper alternative that is a better lens then I am more than willing to look at it. I am just sick of buying cheap average lens's, only to have to upgrade and loose money on selling second hand lens's that no one else wants because they are not the best. Its time to get serious and find the best, buy it once and be done!

[hdn177]

For me I would think the of the choices, 16-35f2.8 would be the go, as you already have the 24-105.
Have you considered to hire the x2 choices and see what you like best? Would be money well spent as both will do the trick fine for you.

Thanks for the replies.

At this point in time I am looking for the BEST I can get, not cheap alternatives that are nice but not as good, if however there is a cheaper alternative that is a better lens then I am more than willing to look at it. I am just sick of buying cheap average lens's, only to have to upgrade and loose money on selling second hand lens's that no one else wants because they are not the best. Its time to get serious and find the best, buy it once and be done!

[William W]

Are you any closer to making your choice?
If not, why not - what's the sticking point?

WW

[Langers]

Hey WW,

Made my choice, went out and found a deal on the 16-35 f/4, locally in Perth. The really funny part is tho my lovely partner, after hearing me always talk about fast glass is better glass, went out and decided to buy me the 16-35 f/2.8 as a gift. Doh, oh we'll, I can't justify having both so we have decided to sell the f2.8 (see the classifieds for a great deal). Will be using the proceeds for that to go towards the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II IS USM or a 24-105 (see my other post on undecided between canon or sigma art). So that's where I am at now.
Still need more glass and hanging out for the imminent release of the 7D MkII.

[William W]

I am sure that you will enjoy your new lens.

I regularly remind my USA colleagues that many USA retailers allow the return of a purchase simply because of change of mind and that they are fortunate that such an offer exists - on the other hand I have had experience of folk from the USA expecting that they have that as a right in Australia - some are very surprised that there is no such right. But I expect that you will find someone who wants a 16 to 35 F/ 2.8MkII for a good price - it is most truly a very fine lens.

Although you are hanging out for an updated 7D, I expect there is a great attraction in exploring the world of UWA and your new 16 to 35 is just waiting to be used on your 5DIII . . .


“Piano Bar”

WW

[ameerat42]

It works at Aldi's Pity they [hardly/don't] sell any lenses

[William W]

^^^

haha