Debating between 2 canon L's

jonolikesbuster · Jun 4, 2007

First off, here's my current set up.
-Canon 5D
-Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 (from my other camera)
-Canon 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
-Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
-Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (kit lens from a XT)

Now what I have is ok. My 70-200mm is great, my 24-135mm is mediocre, the 18-200mm isn't great, and the kit lens I never even use. What I need is a nice walk around kind of lens. Now here's what I was thinking.

-Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L
-Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L

Now these are pretty much the same price, around $1,000 to $1,400, and that's about as much as I'd like to spend. I know I want to get an L becuase I know I'll be kicking myself later if I get something not as good hoping I would have just got the best. Which one should I get? I'm kind of torn. I like that the 16-35 is nice and wide but it's not tele at all. The 24-70 is kind of inbetween but it's not very wide. What one is best? I'm thinking about renting these on rentglass.com and testing them out but thats like $100 to rent both for a week. Is there any advise you can give me?

Big Mike · Jun 4, 2007

Firstly, the 18-55 is an EF-S lens and therefore isn't made to mount to the 5D...which would explain why you never use it.

As for the two lenses in question...I would say that it's up to you and your shooting style and preference. The 16-35 is a very wide angle lens on this format and the 24-70 is normal range lens, with 24mm being fairly wide.

Everything I've heard, says that they are both really great lenses...top of the line. The newer version of the 16-35mm is said to be better than the older version.

One consideration may be size & weight. I know the 24-70mm is a monster but I'm not sure about the 16-35mm.

jonolikesbuster · Jun 4, 2007

Well is the 16-35mm going to have really bad barrel distortion?

You know I've never even tried putting the 18-55mm on my 5D anyway, lol. Thanks.

Big Mike · Jun 4, 2007

Well...what do you consider 'really bad barrel distortion'?

I'm sure you can find plenty of examples/reviews around...or, like you said...just rent it and see.

Mike_E · Jun 4, 2007

Hi, where will you be walking around? I ask because 24mm really isn't that wide at all. Which is a non issue if you are out in the wide open, but if you are shooting in the city you might want to concentrate on what you can't do with each lens.

TomHuck-wa · Jun 4, 2007

I have the 5D and hardly ever remove the 24-70 L from it. Anything wider shows too much distortion on a ff camera, in my opinion. But then I have very strong opinions that dont matter to anyone but me and my dog, and he doesnt argue with me.

JIP · Jun 4, 2007

Honestly those 2 lenses are 2 entirely different animals it is not a good comparison. Both of the 2 lenses you listed serve a differen purpose and I could see a place for both of them in anyone's bag. You really need to determine by your needs wich lens would be best for you right now.

250Gimp · Jun 5, 2007

Have you thought of the 24-105 IS L lense? It would be a great carry around lense, as long as 24mm is wide enough for you. I don't know hwat it is worth though.

Just a thought.

philaw123 · Feb 26, 2011

24-105L IS costs a lot less than the 2 lenses the OP is considering. But I think the OP is making his choices based on the fact that those lenses have a maximum aperture of f/2.8. Your recommendation only goes out to f/4, which is one whole stop of light less than the other two. This may not matter to you but it does for some others. I have a mixed bag in my collection but I would think the OP has merit in preferring a lens that goes out to 2.8. As for which one to get, I have to agree that this is difficult advice to give without knowing his preferences. The 16-35 is more of a wide angle lens that, while limited in function, would prove invaluable to photographers fond of landscapes, interiors, distorted views, and other funky effects achieved with this lens. The 24-70, on the other hand, would be a better choice for those fond of shooting it as they see it. This lens covers a range of wide to normal and is preferred by street and photojournalists. Of course both lenses should not be limited to the uses I just mentioned. This was just meant as a guide.

Buckster · Feb 26, 2011

philaw123 said:
24-105L IS costs a lot less than the 2 lenses the OP is considering. But I think the OP is making his choices based on the fact that those lenses have a maximum aperture of f/2.8. Your recommendation only goes out to f/4, which is one whole stop of light less than the other two. This may not matter to you but it does for some others. I have a mixed bag in my collection but I would think the OP has merit in preferring a lens that goes out to 2.8. As for which one to get, I have to agree that this is difficult advice to give without knowing his preferences. The 16-35 is more of a wide angle lens that, while limited in function, would prove invaluable to photographers fond of landscapes, interiors, distorted views, and other funky effects achieved with this lens. The 24-70, on the other hand, would be a better choice for those fond of shooting it as they see it. This lens covers a range of wide to normal and is preferred by street and photojournalists. Of course both lenses should not be limited to the uses I just mentioned. This was just meant as a guide.

It was four years ago. The OP has probably chosen by now.