16-35 f/4L vs 24-70 f/4L on a FF (Landscape Photography)

[CanonCams]

Going on a trip to Alaska in the next month. I already have a long lens (70-300) picked out, but I am stressing a bit over these two lenses.

I have read the 16-35 is the way to go, and pickup a prime 50mm to fill the buffer from 35 to 70.

However, some have said that 24 is plenty wide, and having the extra reach to 70 will fill the complete area.

Coming from a crop camera, with crop lenses, I am trying to visualize what I may need or may not need. I have used 10-18 on my 80D, and found I rarely used the 10 and more 14-16. However, that is a crop and this will be a FF so picturing it is a bit tough.

 

[Khalai]

It really depends. If you know, that you've used more 14-16 mm on your 10-18 mm lens, then maybe it would make more sense to go with 24-70 (15 mm on APS-C is about equal to 24 mm on FF in Canon world).

But that also depends on the style you are shooting. If you like to go really wide (and close), get that 16-35. If you want to have more general approach, get the 24-70.

Personally, I have both 16-35/4L and 24-70/2.8L II and lately I'm seriously considering selling that UWA zoom for another lens as I find 24 mm still sufficiently wide for my photos...

 

[Loswr]

Obviously it depends on how and what you want to shoot. I use ultrawides on FF frequently, I have the TS-E 17/4L, and for when that's not wide enough, the 11-24/4L. But I use those mainly for architecture. For landscapes, I generally find 24mm wide enough. UWAs can work if you compose with an interesting foreground, but IMO just 'capturing the vista' with an ultrawides doesn't yield a pleasing image.

You might also consider a panorama, if subjects permit (mountains yes, breaking waves no). For those, I often use 50-70mm in portrait orientation.

 

[jd7]

Obviously it depends on how and what you want to shoot. I use ultrawides on FF frequently, I have the TS-E 17/4L, and for when that's not wide enough, the 11-24/4L. But I use those mainly for architecture. For landscapes, I generally find 24mm wide enough. UWAs can work if you compose with an interesting foreground, but IMO just 'capturing the vista' with an ultrawides doesn't yield a pleasing image.

You might also consider a panorama, if subjects permit (mountains yes, breaking waves no). For those, I often use 50-70mm in portrait orientation.

I was going to just +1 Neuro's whole post, but since I don't have a TS-E 17 or an 11-24, I'll limit myself to a +1 of the parts in green

And the fact the OP tended to use an EF-S 10-18 at the long end rather than the wide end points in favour of the 24-70 as well.

 

[BillB]

I didn't shoot really wide much until I swapped the 17-40 for a 16-35 F4 which quickly became my favorite lens. I would much rather live with a gap between 35mm and 70mm than be unable to shoot wider than 24mm. Between zooming with my feet and cropping, the 35-70 gap seems manageable, especially with a 50mm lens on hand. With the 16-35, I seem to shoot in 3 ranges. I shoot a fair amount between 28-35, and if I want to go wider it seems that I mostly want to be wider than 24 and find myself shooting in the 19-22 range. Then there are times that I want to go as wide as I can get, and that means 16. The 70-300 will give you a nice semi-macro closeup capability and the 50mm will be faster than either of the other two lenses which could come in handy.

As others have pointed out, a 16-35 has its limitations for long distance vistas, but that is not really my thing. A lot of it comes down to individual preferences and interests. I am not sure that a trip to Alaska would be the way that I would choose to learn to live with a 16-35 and a gap between 35 and 70. Slanting trees and tiny little objects in the distance can be a real trial in the early days. If you have the 24-70 on hand, my inclination would be to take all three zooms if you are not familiar with the 16-35. If it is a choice of one or the other, the 24-70 seems the safer choice for a trip like this.

 

[ahsanford]

Going on a trip to Alaska in the next month...

I own and adore both of those lenses:

Choose the 16-35 if:

• You are a sharpness obsessive. The 16-35 f/4 is the sharpest Canon zoom I've used.
• Some of your travels will include interiors (churches, caves, etc.) where you can't back your feet up very much.
• You want to pull some very long handheld shutters -- nighttime walkabout, waterfall shooting without a tripod, etc. 16mm + IS is a great for that.
• If you will be in dusty/nasty environments. With a front filter, all the zooming/focusing on the 16-35 is internal, while the 24-70 telescopes to zoom (like all of them do). Both are sealed, but a telescoping zoom might take on dust from repeated zooming in a tough environment. The 16-35 simply doesn't have that large sliding interface to worry about. (I admit, this is really picky -- I've never made the decision based on this)

Choose the 24-70 if:

• You want to jump from wide to standard FLs without changing lenses.
• You don't want to have to pick up a 50 prime to cover the gap in the FL range (I would contend that having 16 / 35 / 70 / 300 covered is no gap at all, but you may really be picky about FLs).
• You are doing a fair amount of less landscape-y walkabout shooting with friends/family/etc.
• You dig taking 'drive-by' (super quick, less formal) macro shots -- the 24-70 f/4 has a killer 0.7x macro mode for flowers and bugs and such.
• You plan to hike with only one lens -- I find the 24-70 f/4 to be a great all-purpose lens, but the weather sealing, light weight, and macro mode make it a killer hiking choice.

Choose neither (get another lens...) if:

• You love shooting astro. Both will work, but a faster lens (and wider lens in the case of the 24-70) would be in order for that.
• You plan on low light handheld work where the subject is moving -- it's time for the f/2.8 zooms or possibly an f/1.4 prime at that point.

Either lens will serve you well. I'd choose the tool that best fits your activities. As much as I think of the 16-35 as the Canon landscape tool -- it was the sharp/modern/affordable/no f2.8 needed lens landscapers wanted for so long -- not everyone shoots UWA landscapes.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

P.S. I would honestly disregard your poll in your decision making. (Spoiler alert: the 16-35 will mop the floor with the 24-70 on a general ask of the forum, especially if you say landscapes.) But only you know what you will do with this lens on this trip -- choose what makes sense for you.

- A

 

[dak723]

Shooting landscapes for 30 plus years and almost never needed anything wider than 24mm (rarely even shoot that wide) - but it depends on how close you will be to your subjects. My guess will be that you won't be that close, so I would choose the 24-70. I voted other because I find that the more reach the better if I only have one lens, so I would choose the 24-105mm if you have it.

But I would agree with ahsanford - only you know what you will be shooting and what you will need.

 

[bholliman]

The answer is really a personal preference. I really enjoy shooting ultra wide landscapes, close to the water, rocks, flowers or other foreground element. So, for me the decision to take the 16-35 would be an easy one, even if it meant leaving my standard zoom at home. The vast majority of my best work is at focal lengths wider than 24mm and longer than 400mm, but that certainly isn't true for everybody.

We visited Alaska in 2014 and I took my 6D and 3 lenses: 24-70 f/2.8 II, 70-200 f/2.8 II and a rented Tamron 150-600 for wildlife. Looking at the LR statistics from that trip, the majority (773) were with the 24-70 followed by the 150-600 (556) and 70-200 (128). But, I didn't purchase my 16-35 f/4 until several months after that trip so it wasn't available to me at that time. If it had been, I would have definitely taken it along.

 

[leadin2]

If you don't know what you will be shooting, 24-70. For Travelling, I would normally bring a prime lens with 24-105 on a FF or 17-55 on an apsc.

If you know you will be shooting landscape with UWA, then 16-35. Usually, 20mm is wide enough for me unless I don't have space to move backwards.

Like the guys said, only you will know what is your shooting preference and what you are looking out to take.

 

[CanonCams]

The answer is really a personal preference. I really enjoy shooting ultra wide landscapes, close to the water, rocks, flowers or other foreground element. So, for me the decision to take the 16-35 would be an easy one, even if it meant leaving my standard zoom at home. The vast majority of my best work is at focal lengths wider than 24mm and longer than 400mm, but that certainly isn't true for everybody.

We visited Alaska in 2014 and I took my 6D and 3 lenses: 24-70 f/2.8 II, 70-200 f/2.8 II and a rented Tamron 150-600 for wildlife. Looking at the LR statistics from that trip, the majority (773) were with the 24-70 followed by the 150-600 (556) and 70-200 (128). But, I didn't purchase my 16-35 f/4 until several months after that trip so it wasn't available to me at that time. If it had been, I would have definitely taken it along.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but do you believe you would have used the 16-35 more often than the 24-70 if you would have had it available?

 

[CanonCams]

I do appreciate the great responses. I may have to take a run into B&H in the city (NY) and see the two lenses for myself.

 

[ahsanford]

I do appreciate the great responses. I may have to take a run into B&H in the city (NY) and see the two lenses for myself.

If you have time, rent both over a weekend. That always does it for me.

That plus mining your own travel photography statistics for the # of shots taken / # of keepers with your various lenses (or at various FLs) will reinforce either what you are into shooting, or possibly where you often run out of FL.

- A

 

[Loswr]

The answer is really a personal preference. I really enjoy shooting ultra wide landscapes, close to the water, rocks, flowers or other foreground element. So, for me the decision to take the 16-35 would be an easy one, even if it meant leaving my standard zoom at home. The vast majority of my best work is at focal lengths wider than 24mm and longer than 400mm, but that certainly isn't true for everybody.

We visited Alaska in 2014 and I took my 6D and 3 lenses: 24-70 f/2.8 II, 70-200 f/2.8 II and a rented Tamron 150-600 for wildlife. Looking at the LR statistics from that trip, the majority (773) were with the 24-70 followed by the 150-600 (556) and 70-200 (128). But, I didn't purchase my 16-35 f/4 until several months after that trip so it wasn't available to me at that time. If it had been, I would have definitely taken it along.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but do you believe you would have used the 16-35 more often than the 24-70 if you would have had it available?

To put it a different way, bholliman of the 773 shots with the 24-70mm, how many were at the 24mm end and not cropped in post? If you're taking shots at the wide end of a zoom and not cropping them, it suggests you would benefit from a wider lens (and conversely, if you're taking shots at the long end of a zoom and cropping them, you likely need a longer lens).

I mention the cropping bit since it's critical to look deeper than just the focal length. Some years back, in trying to decide between getting a 24/1.4L II and a 35/1.4L intended for indoor ambient light shooting, I looked over my EXIF from my 24-105/4L, and found many more shots in the 24-30mm range than in 30-40mm range. That would suggest the 24L would be a better choice, but when I looked at the image sizes, it turned out most of the shots at ~24mm were actually cropped to an approximate 35mm FoV. So I bought the 35L.

 

[CanonCams]

I do appreciate the great responses. I may have to take a run into B&H in the city (NY) and see the two lenses for myself.

If you have time, rent both over a weekend. That always does it for me.

That plus mining your own travel photography statistics for the # of shots taken / # of keepers with your various lenses (or at various FLs) will reinforce either what you are into shooting, or possibly where you often run out of FL.

- A

Interestingly enough, I started going through my flickr account from my last trip to Florida when I was using my 80D w/10-18 and 18-55.

And using the handy dandy calculator, I am going through the photos converting my APS-C focal length to FF length to see where that majority of my shots had taken place.

 

[geekpower]

another way to look at it is not to ask "is 24mm wide enough?", but "is 35mm long enough?"

35mm is basically the wide end of "normal" but to get any compression effects you need to go quite a bit longer, which your 70-300 will do for you anyway. for landscapes i don't personally find a huge difference in perspective between 35 and 50mm (there is a more noticeable difference in portraits with those lengths though), but a whole world of possibilities opens up between 16 and 24.

 

[AdamBotond]

My gut says 16-34 F4 IS all the way! Its sharp from corner to corner wide open, great coverage for landscapes, IS comes in handy, it is my go to lens when it comes to landscapes. But I think it also comes down to this: do you ever use 50mm focal length and around? I am not a big fan of 50mm, what's more I could live without 35-70mm on a trip like the one you are planning. But as others said, its up to one's personal preference.

 

[greger]

I would go for the 24-70 as I think it has a focal length range that is more usable on a trip. If you want a pic wider than 24, take two pics and merge in PS. With this focal length range you may find you change lenses less often.

 

[CanonCams]

I looked at the Florida pictures, and jotted down the ASPC Focal Lengths. (The number in the parenthesis is the number of pictures at that FL). The column to the right is the equivalent FF FL.

I then took the three types of lenses, to see where they would fit in the FL areas.

Of course, this was Florida and not Alaska...

 

[YuengLinger]

I think I'd have more options, if I could only bring ONE, with the 24-70mm. Spent a summer in China doing street photography with a 20D (years ago!). Had the 16-35mm and 24-70mm. Went with the wider one occasionally in tight spaces, but, even on a cropped sensor, rarely felt cramped with the 24-70mm.

Today? If I could only bring one lens for the same type of photography? Harder choice, because since then I've discovered the joys of the 35mm f/1.4 II. However, if it were one and one only, 24-105mm!!!