16-35mm f/2.8 L ...anyone own one?

[Diddy2theJJ]

I just bought a 5D Mark II and am really loving it. The only problem that I'm having is that my current wide lens is an EF-S lens and won't fit it. So what I've been doing is using that on my 7D and then using my 5D Mk II with my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lens. I've been getting really good results, but the 5D photos are quite noticeably better in quality. I'm thinking that if I buy this 16-35mm f/2.8 L I will have a really nice setup of lenses using my 70-200 and this, I won't really need any other lenses for wedding and portrait photography. Does anyone own one of these? It's a pretty expensive lens so I wanted to see what you guys had to say before I go ahead and order it.

Thanks!

- Diddy

 

[penfolderoldo]

I used to own one, and it's a fantastic lens, no question. Wide open there's ever so slight softening at the edges, but unless you're planning on poster prints you won't even be able to see it. Only reason I went to the 17-40 was the extra 5mm at the top end made all the difference for me. For weddings and portraits tho i'm thinking the 24-70 2.8L might be a more useful lens?

 

[Big Mike]

The newer version II is supposed to be much better than the older version I.

 

[Diddy2theJJ]

Yeah 24-70 2.8L sounds like a great lens as well. But I'm used to a 15 now so I think that having the 24mm as my widest setting will be tough to get used to. I use my 70-200 during the whole ceremony so I can stay back and out of the way so this would probably be more geared toward the outdoor group shots etc. But...the 24-70 would be a great lens too, i just wouldn't be able to get as wide. Decisions decisions.........

 

[Big Mike]

You have to be careful about shooting people with these ultra wide lenses. It forces you to be fairly close, which will give you plots of perspective distortion...especially near the edges of the frame. For group shots, you are better off with a focal length in the 35-50mm range.

 

[Diddy2theJJ]

Good point Mike. I will generally stick to that, but at times the wide angle is useful. But...come to think about it. My wide angle lens was a 15mm but it was on a cropped sensor camera. I know there's some differences with cropped sensor compared to a full frame and how they handle the images. How do you know what it is equivalent to for a full frame? Would it have been close to 20mm?

 

[Big Mike]

The 'crop factor' for Canon is 1.6 (Nikon is 1.5). So 15mm on an APS-C sensor Canon camera will give you the equivelant FOV as 24mm on a full frame body.

 

[Diddy2theJJ]

Hmm....so does that mean that in using my 15mm on a APS-C sensor Canon 7D, that my FOV was basically the same as if I were to place a 24mm lens on my 5D Mk II?

If so then it's kind of a no brainer to go with the 24-70 f/2.8L II don't you think?

 

[Diddy2theJJ]

I've also been reading good things about the 24-105mm f/4. Some say better sharpness and it has IS as well. Maybe this would be better for weddings/portraits etc and I could use this more as an all purpose lens instead of switching to the 70-200 for outdoor shots. So many great lenses to choose from!

 

[Big Mike]

If so then it's kind of a no brainer to go with the 24-70 f/2.8L II don't you think?

That's why 90% of pro wedding photographers shoot with that range.
b.t.w....is that a typo, or is there actually a version II of the 24-70mm F2.8 L?

So now you have to decide which you would like better, the 24-105 or the 24-70. That is one of the most asked questions on Canon based forums. (along with 50mm F1.8 vs 50mm F1.4). The 24-105 obviously has a nicer range and IS. It's also a bit smaller and lighter. The 24-70mm is nicknamed 'The Brick' for good reason, it's as big and as heavy as a brick.
I think that (from all I've read/heard) that the image quality from either is up to par for an L zoom lens. So it's very good, but maybe not as good as the very, very sharp zooms or L primes. The 24-70mm is and has been the primary work horse lens for professional Canon shooters for a long time. And in most cases, the larger maximum aperture is why people would choose it over the 24-105 F4. But now that you have a camera that can shoot comfortably at ISO 6400, you may not miss that extra stop of aperture....but then again, as the light gets low, you will miss it eventually.

I have heard a few people tales about 24-70mm F2.8 L lenses that don't focus accurately. Good enough for most, but not good enough for the perfectionist type. I've also heard plenty of people say that the 24-105mm is a sharper lens...but I've also heard one or two people say they were expecting more from it.

 

[Diddy2theJJ]

That was a type, sorry it is the 16-35 that has a version II.

Very good points to make and has given me some pros and cons to weigh out.

Thanks Mike for your insight! It is quite helpful as usual.

 

[penfolderoldo]

If so then it's kind of a no brainer to go with the 24-70 f/2.8L II don't you think?

That's why 90% of pro wedding photographers shoot with that range.
b.t.w....is that a typo, or is there actually a version II of the 24-70mm F2.8 L?

I have heard a few people tales about 24-70mm F2.8 L lenses that don't focus accurately. Good enough for most, but not good enough for the perfectionist type. I've also heard plenty of people say that the 24-105mm is a sharper lens...but I've also heard one or two people say they were expecting more from it.

Nope, there's no mark II version of the 24-70 Mike, so must be a typo. The 24-105 is i'm sure a great lens, but for me the extra stop on the 24-70 makes all the difference for me. I've tried the 24-105, and I don't think it's as sharp wide open as the 24-70.

 

[Diddy2theJJ]

If so then it's kind of a no brainer to go with the 24-70 f/2.8L II don't you think?

That's why 90% of pro wedding photographers shoot with that range.
b.t.w....is that a typo, or is there actually a version II of the 24-70mm F2.8 L?

I have heard a few people tales about 24-70mm F2.8 L lenses that don't focus accurately. Good enough for most, but not good enough for the perfectionist type. I've also heard plenty of people say that the 24-105mm is a sharper lens...but I've also heard one or two people say they were expecting more from it.

Nope, there's no mark II version of the 24-70 Mike, so must be a typo. The 24-105 is i'm sure a great lens, but for me the extra stop on the 24-70 makes all the difference for me. I've tried the 24-105, and I don't think it's as sharp wide open as the 24-70.

Hey Penfolderoldo, thanks for your input as well. What sort of situations are you in when you notice it makes the most difference? Are you referring to shooting in low light conditions? From some of the reading I've been doing online, some say that the 24-105 is sharper than the 24-70 wide open, but you said you had better luck with the 24-70 wide open?

 

[penfolderoldo]

That's why 90% of pro wedding photographers shoot with that range.
b.t.w....is that a typo, or is there actually a version II of the 24-70mm F2.8 L?

I have heard a few people tales about 24-70mm F2.8 L lenses that don't focus accurately. Good enough for most, but not good enough for the perfectionist type. I've also heard plenty of people say that the 24-105mm is a sharper lens...but I've also heard one or two people say they were expecting more from it.

Nope, there's no mark II version of the 24-70 Mike, so must be a typo. The 24-105 is i'm sure a great lens, but for me the extra stop on the 24-70 makes all the difference for me. I've tried the 24-105, and I don't think it's as sharp wide open as the 24-70.

Hey Penfolderoldo, thanks for your input as well. What sort of situations are you in when you notice it makes the most difference? Are you referring to shooting in low light conditions? From some of the reading I've been doing online, some say that the 24-105 is sharper than the 24-70 wide open, but you said you had better luck with the 24-70 wide open?

A lot of the time i'm shooting in low light, so that's where the extra stop really shows. I've only used the 24-105 briefly (when my 24-70 was in for service) so limited 'test' results, but I found it fractionally sharper (tho indistinguishable at normal size) at the edges on f/5.6 and above but below that the 24-70 has the edge, for me anyway. It's just a better combo for me, tend to keep the 24-70 on my 1Ds or 5D and the 70-200 on the other.

 

[Diddy2theJJ]

Pretty interesting. I'm leaning towards the 24-105 since I would primarily be using it outdoors or in the studio and wouldn't necessarily need the f/2.8. I do have a fixed 85mm f/1.8 that I can use if I need the speed. I'll let it bounce around in the 'ol noggin for a couple of days and see. Thanks for the help guys.