16-35mm f/4 IS vs 24-70mm f/4 IS - First Lens for 7D MkII

[TheLaxPlayer]

Hello folks, I am looking into getting a newer camera for myself and my wife for general photography / pictures of our son. Usage will be indoor and outdoor, but more focused on taking pictures of people than landscapes.

The only SLR we have experience with is our Nikon D40, for which we have the 18-55mm kit lens and a 35mm f/1.8 prime. We plan to move to Canon due to the better lens lineup and pricing, which brings me to my question.

A 7D Mark II will be our first Canon camera, so we have no Canon mount lenses. We're primarily focused on EF lenses as we may move up to a FF in a few years and would prefer to stick with weather sealed lenses, which I believe means we would be restricted to the L lineup.

So if you were buying your first lens, not expecting to buy another for at least a few months, would you go for a 16-35mm f/4 IS or 24-70mm f/4 IS?

Thanks!

 

[candc]

There are better lenses for apsc than those. If you think you want a ff camera then I would just get it now. The price on the 6d and the 5diii are in this same range as 7dii. Don't forget about the 70d, its a good camera at a really reasonable price.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

You mentioned two lenses of high quality and moderate price, but for very different uses.

Canon 16-35 F4 IS will be better in tight environments, allowing framing whole body of people, but not suitable for pictures of the head and shoulders. In that case, I suggest complementary with the new 50mm F1.8 STM which will hit stores in the coming days.

Canon 24-70 F4 IS is more versatile for almost everything, but not for full-body photos of people in tight environments.

 

[TheLaxPlayer]

There are better lenses for apsc than those. If you think you want a ff camera then I would just get it now. The price on the 6d and the 5diii are in this same range as 7dii. Don't forget about the 70d, its a good camera at a really reasonable price.

The 5D Mark III is $750 more and at this point I would rather spend the extra money on quality glass if the $750 was in the budget at the moment (which it's not).

I'm concerned that the 6D AF will be too finicky for action shots and especially video. I would also expect the 6D resale value to drop significantly with the rumors pointing at a Mark II version next year.

I don't expect the 70D to be any cheaper than the 7D Mark II over the course of 3-5 years assuming we sell the body when we upgrade, so there isn't much incentive there.

I guess the obvious answer to my OP is that I need to mount the 18-55 to my D40 and see if I would rather be limited to nothing longer than 35mm or nothing shorter than 24mm, but I was hoping for other's thoughts on the subject in case I'm missing something.

 

[bereninga]

If you're set on getting one of these two lenses, if I were you I probably would pick the 24-70 f4 since the 16-35 f4 is mainly for landscape.

 

[TheLaxPlayer]

The 16-35mm isn't actually that wide on APS-C, so these are both pretty much "normal" zooms. I guess I need to redefine my question a bit.

Besides the obvious difference in focal range, does anybody have input on any other differences which might make one of these better than the other assuming a lot of the picture taking will occur within the focal range overlap? Meaning, if you were taking the majority of your pictures in the 24-35mm focal length range, which would you choose?

Thanks

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I can't speak for the 24-70 F4 as I use the 24-70 F2.8 L V2.
When I used APSC cameras I had the Canon 17-40 L and the Canon 24-105 L IS. For my uses I found the 17-40 focal range more useful. Now I use full frame and the 16-35 F4 L IS and 24-70 F2.8 L V2 I find the 24-70 range more useful.
Personally I would go for the 16-35 F4 L IS. It is markedly better than my, much loved 17-40, and will give you a focal range of roughly 25-56mm - which I find more useful than 38-112 (24-70) with the smaller sensors. When/if you move to full frame then the 16-35 becomes a pretty wide angle lens, which I like, but you will need a longer lens on top. If you can live with the 38mm minimum field of view that the 24-70 offers (I can't) then the 24-70 may be the cheaper option in the long run.
Only you can decide which focal range suits you best.

 

[candc]

well if you have your mind made up on the 7dii and one of those lenses then i would recommend the 16-35. its a very good lens and a useful range on aps-c.

 

[rs]

While 16-35 on crop is a little limited at the long end for a one lens setup, I find a 24-70 lens on crop missing a much more important part of the range.

If macro is a requirement, the 24-70 is the obvious one lens choice.

From an optical point of view, this tool may help you decide:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=963&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=823&Sample=0&SampleComp=0&CameraComp=963&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[cid]

Depend on your photo style - I was using 24-70 f/2.8 II on 60D for about a year and it was very nice combo. Now I use both 16-35 and 24-70 range on FF and I have to say if I was about to choose one of these ranges from scratch it would be 16-35.

On crop the situation is bit different but as many other have stated - 16-35 is probably more useful on crop too, but if I were you I would maybe wait a little bit and go for FF and get some cashback on lens and/or body

 

[Coldhands]

I own both of these lenses and its tough to see any difference in IQ. They both have the latest IS, great build quality and fast auto-focus. They are both weather sealed, although theoretically the 16-35 requires a front filter to complete the sealing. If size/weight are important it may be worth noting that the 24-70 is noticeably smaller and lighter then the 16-35. Also, as mentioned by others, the 24-70 has a macro mode as well, which is useful for close-up photography.

As for which zoom range is more useful, it all depends on your subjects but as you say it's mostly for shooting people, I would go for the 24-70 as the longer focal lengths will allow you to have a shallower DoF.

 

[eric3]

I have the 16-35 and have used it on my 7d. It is a good all around lens on apsc and in tighter spaces it will work great. It is short on the long end so i would say the 24-70 because it of the extra reach.

 

[Lee Jay]

Want the truth?

Don't do that. Don't buy full-frame lenses just because you might, someday, buy a full-frame camera. Buy what you need. Lenses hold their value pretty well, especially if you buy on sale, used or refurbished. You might even be able to get all your money back on a lens.

There are two real options for me for a "standard zoom" for EF-s - good light and bad light.

The bad light lenses are the 17-55/2.8IS or the Sigma 18-35/1.8. The 17-55 is better for range and stationary subjects. The Sigma is better for moving subjects.
The good light lenses are the 18-135STM and the 15-85IS. The 18-135 is better for range and video, the 15-85 is better for wider angle and faster focusing.

All of those lenses are good enough optically that the optics aren't going to limit your photography.

If you choose to buy a full-frame body later, figure out then what you're going to keep and what you're going to sell.

 

[candc]

Want the truth?

Don't do that. Don't buy full-frame lenses just because you might, someday, buy a full-frame camera. Buy what you need. Lenses hold their value pretty well, especially if you buy on sale, used or refurbished. You might even be able to get all your money back on a lens.

There are two real options for me for a "standard zoom" for EF-s - good light and bad light.

The bad light lenses are the 17-55/2.8IS or the Sigma 18-35/1.8. The 17-55 is better for range and stationary subjects. The Sigma is better for moving subjects.
The good light lenses are the 18-135STM and the 15-85IS. The 18-135 is better for range and video, the 15-85 is better for wider angle and faster focusing.

All of those lenses are good enough optically that the optics aren't going to limit your photography.

If you choose to buy a full-frame body later, figure out then what you're going to keep and what you're going to sell.

And the sigma 18-35 works of ff. Its about as good as the 35 art.

 

[TheLaxPlayer]

I ordered the 7D Mark 2, the 24-70 F/4L, and the 50mm F/1.8 STM. The 17-55 F/2.8 didn't really make sense to me for more money than these two lenses combined. I know there would have been a few advantages of the 17-55 but for me they were outweighed pretty heavily by the advantages of what I did order. I also may jump to FF sooner if the 5D Mark IV rumors are well founded.

The Sigma 18-35 F/1.8 is APS-C only. More importantly, I would rather stick with Canon lenses for the long term support and in camera corrections. The Sigma is also more expensive than what I paid for the 24-70 plus 50 STM.

Thanks

 

[Bernd Stuht]

You have ordered the Body and Lenses, ok - it will be ok for you.

I also would recommend an other Way to Start with APSC an Future 24x36mm Sensor.

7DII with Kitlens for general use ( 17-55 STM ) and an L-Series Telephoto like the 70-200 f4 L IS.

But it seems you dont look for Telephoto that much.

The 16-35 f4 L IS is an fine Lens, but for APSC not very usefull ( my 2ct´s ).

I also assume new interessting wide Lenses for "FF" in the near Future - including a new 35 L f1.4.

The Range of 24-70 is mostly used by myself - on 24x36mm Sensor, for People often Tele like 135mm.
The 85mm f 1.8 USM would be nice for your needs too.

On the other Side - it is nothing wrong with your Selection.

Greetings Bernd ( with bad English - i knew )

 

[ReggieABrown]

I've seen in several forums where people say "don't buy a full frame lens for a crop sensor camera". My question is, why not? Why did Canon make the 7d Mark ii one of the toughest weather sealed bodies if it wasn't meant to be used with weather sealed lens, which weather sealing is only on "full frame" lens (as of now)? The apsc specific lens ARE NOT weather sealed. Aren't all the 50mm prime lens made for full frame sensors? Yet on a crop sensor it's recommended for portrait work.

I say get the lens that makes you happy. My preference of lens are Canon L lens on my 7d Mark ii. Maybe it's a placebo effect, but my L lens out perform the dedicated apsc lens by a large margin; with its color reproduction, sharpness, and over all performance. And also, you can use those red rings as a marketing tool! Just my 2 cents.

 

[Bernd Stuht]

It´s all ok, with it, but you loose wide Angle, an get heavy(er) Lenses.

So i would choose an Wide to Standard Crop Zoom with L/FF Tele.
Later look for some Nice fast Primes for EF ( non"s" ) .
Selling the Croplens with the Body in the Future.

Greetings

Bernd

 

[bluenoser1993]

From personal experience I agree that you should buy lenses for the camera you have. I started wit ha 7D and made a lot of lens decisions based on my plan to upgrade to a 5D3 when prices came down before the IV came out. Well I bought a 7DII recently instead. I went with a 24-105L and 10-22 combination and also added a 70-200 2.8 II IS. The 24-105 never got used at the long end because the 70-200 would be mounted instead. I don't really do ultrawide stuff, but still found 24 not wide enough and was constantly switching between 24-105 and 10-22.

I bought a 17-55 2.8 last year and haven't used either of the other two lenses since. I think it is time to list them for sale. 17-55 sells at very reasonable price used.

Since you also purchased the 50 1.8, I would have recommended the Sigma 18-35 1.8 like someone else did. That would be a great combo. I also recently got a good deal on a fast 50 and kind of wish I had gone with the sigma option, but I'm still happy with the 17-55.

You can probably still change the order, or return it. I'd really consider a lens starting at 17 or 18mm as the minimum for the 7DII. No matter what, you'll always second guess, so the main thing is use what you've picked and enjoy the great new camera you just purchased.

 

[TheLaxPlayer]

I've seen in several forums where people say "don't buy a full frame lens for a crop sensor camera". My question is, why not? Why did Canon make the 7d Mark ii one of the toughest weather sealed bodies if it wasn't meant to be used with weather sealed lens, which are "full frame"lens only (as of now)? The apsc specific lens ARE NOT weather sealed. Isn't all the 50mm lens full frame lens? Yet on a crop sensor it's recommended for portrait work.

I say get the lens that makes you happy. My preference of lens are Canon L lens on my 7d Mark ii. Maybe it's a placebo effect, but my L lens out perform the dedicated apsc lens by a large margin; with its color reproduction, sharpness, and over all performance. And also, you can use those red rings as a marketing tool! Just my 2 cents.

Agreed, I'm pleased that the 24-70 F/4L is weather sealed whereas the 17-55 F/2.8 isn't. Also, if the focal length, cost, and weight of the lens is acceptable you avoid corner softness and vignetting by going with the FF lens over a APS-C lens on a APS-C body.

If there was a weather sealed EF-S 24-70 that was F/4 or faster with similar optical quality for less money I'd understand the argument better but there just isn't one...