I have broken and need to replace my 16-35mm f2.8 for my 5d3, I am agonizing over the choice between the updated 16-35 2.8 mkii or the 24-70 2.8mk ii?
2061530
24-70mm in general whether its mk1 or mk2 or even some other third party brand are all good for general purpose uses. Coming from 16-35mm lens, you might feel it wont be wide enough. a great question to ask yourself is: do i want a wide angle lens or a general purpose lens? for me, 24-70mm can be constricting sometimes, but the bulk of my shots are shot around 35-50mm. As a piece of advise, Id say see what photos you have already taken and see what most of your shots are taken at. If they are usually taken around 35mm seems like the 24-70mm might be a better choice. if your shots are taken more towards 16mm then maybe the mk2 of the 16-35mm would be best.
2061531
24-70mm in general whether its mk1 or mk2 or even some other third party brand are all good for general purpose uses. Coming from 16-35mm lens, you might feel it wont be wide enough. a great question to ask yourself is: do i want a wide angle lens or a general purpose lens? for me, 24-70mm can be constricting sometimes, but the bulk of my shots are shot around 35-50mm. As a piece of advise, Id say see what photos you have already taken and see what most of your shots are taken at. If they are usually taken around 35mm seems like the 24-70mm might be a better choice. if your shots are taken more towards 16mm then maybe the mk2 of the 16-35mm would be best. 24-70mm in general whether its mk1 or mk2 or even some other third party brand are all good for general purpose uses. Coming from 16-35mm lens, you might feel it wont be wide enough. a great question to ask yourself is: do i want a wide angle lens or a general purpose lens? for me, 24-70mm can be constricting sometimes, but the bulk of my shots are shot around 35-50mm. As a piece of advise, Id say see what photos you have already taken and see what most of your shots are taken at. If they are usually taken around 35mm seems like the 24-70mm might be a better choice. if your shots are taken... » Read More 24-70mm in general whether its mk1 or mk2 or even some other third party brand are all good for general purpose uses. Coming from 16-35mm lens, you might feel it wont be wide enough. a great question to ask yourself is: do i want a wide angle lens or a general purpose lens? for me, 24-70mm can be constricting sometimes, but the bulk of my shots are shot around 35-50mm. As a piece of advise, Id say see what photos you have already taken and see what most of your shots are taken at. If they are usually taken around 35mm seems like the 24-70mm might be a better choice. if your shots are taken more towards 16mm then maybe the mk2 of the 16-35mm would be best. « Show Less
220609
Hi John,If light is an issue, you would definitely need a lens with f2.8 or less. and with 24-105 you can at best get f4.0 so I believe you will have to choose between quality and range.If you want quality in low light conditions then go for the 24-70 mm. If range is a greater priority then you can go for the 24-105 f/4.0 L IS
987142
I owned the 50D and now own a 7D. I have had my 17-55 f/1.8 IS for over 2 years. I bought the 24-105 a year ago to replace my 17-55 hahaha yea let me say right now I am not selling my 17-55 and when shooting indoors the 17-55 f/2.8 is will be my first choice over the 24-105 f/4 IS. Indoors f/4 is slow period. I ended up buying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to shoot indoors for low light and I LOVE it. Anyways on a crop body I would pick the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS for indoors unless its a really well lit room or I am using my 580 EXII. I am leaning to primes anymore and would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 for you. Another option is Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 85 f/1.8 and you spend less then either of those lenses heck you can throw in a 50 f/1.8 and have 3 lenses for the price of 1 if you don't mind switching lenses. Nick
608746
I have both of these and they are excellent lenses. This is my profession and it I were to choose go with the 17-70, unless you don't need the extra reach and you mostly work in low light.
794544
i would get 24mm, wider angle is more useful and it's sharper than 35mm, also try the new Sigma 35mm 1.4, bokeh is irritating, quality, built not up to Nikon's, but it's sharper and cheaper.
465323
The 10-22 on you 70D is going to closely match the 17-40 range after adjusting for crop. It really is a personal choice. I stayed away from EF-S lenses because I knew I would eventually get a full frame camera, but if you really need the ultra wide of 16mm the the 10-23 is the only thing to get you there.
759249
My brother has loan his 50 1.4 to me. I like. I may get the 24-70 2.8 - we get so many positives about it. Use the 24-70 indoors and the 4f lens where there is good light??Thanks for your suggestions.
354393
I bought it to replace the 14-42 that was damaged. 17mm is included in the range of the original lens. It also is f2.8 over the f3.5.GeneK
194936
I am an amateur photographer and do not plan on going to an FX sensor. I plan on shooting from both a monopod and free hand. I do enjoy having the best but only when it makes sense. I have not had much luck shooting my son's hockey games with my current lense and need the 2.8 to get the low light, high speed shots. A friend has the VI and she is able to get some great shots. That was the lens I was orignally looking at until this one came out. Can you point me to a site that has the comparison shots. In light of ths information, what would you go with. Thanks again for your response.
1401672
The 70D offers so much more. The T4i is now obsolete, replaced by the T5i. During the Christmas sale, the 70D kit was only $100 more than the T5i. I got both, and after using both, I sold the T5i. Definitely go for the 70D with the 18-135mm kit.
1203850
yep. I am going to amend my advice and recommend the Tokina 11-16 2.8. This gets excellent reviews and is faster than the others for low light shooting such as UW. I shot with the 10-24 such subjects as a gilded church. It came out spectacular. All in all, if money is not an issue, it is a tossup between the nikon and tokina. I switched to fx format and now use the nikon 12-24. It's a monster. BTW, another great option for the Nikon DX is the great 18-200 zoom.
220612
Yes I would take the 24-70 2.8 because of the speed. This lens is my go to lens, it is a work horses. I back it up with my 70-200 2.8.
678605
In my opinion it depends on what your main reason for using the lens is. If you don't NEED the 2.8 then go with the 4, I don't think IQ is dramatically better or worse. Unless there was ever a time while you were using the f/4 that you were like "man I wish I could stop down to 2.8," I would just stick to the f/4.Edit: Just saw on another reply you said something about portraits, if you are going to use the lens for portraits at all the 2.8 is amazing, the bokeh is simply stunning.
108096
Honestly unless you are making good money off of it go with the 28mm 1.8 it is fantastic. The 24mm is exceptional but 9 times out of ten you will have the same image for 3x the price and twice the weight/size.
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
1150472
"Nick Kovacs says:way too slow...I tried it and quickly purchased a 70-200 2.8"LOL, how can the 24-70mm f/2.8L be slower than the 70-200mm f/2.8L which is equally "fast"? I own both and I notice no difference between the two, other than their reach of course.
1413084
You lose very little with this lens vds 70-200. The gain is the extra reach and wide angle, it a major upgrade. Having said that , and given the high $$$, I'd wait for the new model. New Model? I suspect so. Everyone, including Canon, is 'out-of-stock'. Couple that with Canon's receent announcment (July 2009) that they have a new IS that will be in 'interchangable' lenses by the end of 2009, it is not a surprise they stopped producing the 28-300mm so they could clear out the stock.I use the XTi- 40D and now the 5D mark II. The glass makes the picture.