16-35 2.8 vs 70-200 4 on 650D

[Casanova]

Dear People,

I would love to hear your opinion. Any help will be highly appreciated.

Right now I have a 650d ( T4i ) and a 50 1.8. I would need a new lens in order to have a wider range... for the future im planing to go full frame and buy 16-36 and 70-200 f4, however I have a problem deciding which one to buy first, as I have a crop camera the 16-35 the real usage of it being wide seems to be a bit wasted, which as a shame since my first priority is architecture and landscape. Of course I also shoot with joy people, animals in the zoo etc. What would you say is a better choice for now ? Which could be a better all a rounder ? Once again, thank you in advance.

 

[xvnm]

Well, the 70-200 (112-320 equiv) would be far from a good choice as a general purpose lens for a crop body.

Have you considered the 17-40? It has a slightly more useful focal range, and it's only half the price of the 16-35 offering the same IQ, albeit a stop slower.

 

[Jim Saunders]

Of the two I'd get the wide one first. Just my $0.02.

Jim

 

[andersde]

If you are definitely going ff soon and landscape is your preference then it has to be the 16 35. Its still quite wide on crop so would certainly do until you change body.

If you aren't so sure when you'd go ff consider getting a canon 15-85 and a 70 200 now and then sell your 650d and the 15-85 whenever you go FF. That' give you a great range now and cover most scenarios.

 

[rs]

On your crop camera, the 16-35 frames the same as a 26-56mm lens would on FF, and although it loses its raison d'être with the 1.6x crop, it does act like a normal lens with a questionably more useful range as a main lens. The 70-200 frames like a 112-320, a bit long for people shots unless you're planning on head shots or stepping back a very long way.

Assuming you're on about the 70-200/4 L IS and the 16-35/2.8 L II, here is a comparison of IQ on an 18MP crop camera - showing the 16-35 at its worst ( 28mm, f2.8 ):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=404&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

If you're planning on architecture and landscape uses for a wide angle lens, a large DoF is key, so there's little point in having an f2.8 aperture. What about the 17-40L? Just as good at f8, and much cheaper.

However, any image quality differences are much less important than the focal length - and only you can answer this one - if your 50 was a zoom, which way would you mostly try to turn that zoom ring? Wider or longer?

 

[dtaylor]

Assuming you're on about the 70-200/4 L IS and the 16-35/2.8 L II, here is a comparison of IQ on an 18MP crop camera - showing the 16-35 at its worst ( 28mm, f2.8 ):

I would say there's something obviously wrong with the 16-35 sample he tested on the 60D.

I love TDP and their lens comparison tool is one of the most useful tools on the web. But sometimes bad samples do slip in, and you have to watch for that.

 

[timmy_650]

I have the 70-200 f4 on my t2i and I am really happy with it. I rented the 16-35 f2.8 and wasn't too impressed with it. But I get a 17-35 f2.8 tarmon which i use a lot.

 

[Random Orbits]

I would suggest getting a APS-C zoom first, unless you plan on moving to FF in the near future (less than 6 months). If the price of a new 15-85 or something similar is too steep, try looking for a good used copy. The range of the 16-35 is too short on aps-c, and it is pricy to be used that way. On FF, it becomes more of a specialty lens, and it's IQ isn't that great. If you get this general purpose zoom for APS-Cused, then you won't lose much selling it when you move FF.

And, if you have sufficient additional funds, I'd suggest getting the 70-200. It's good on APC-S, but it'll really come into its own on FF.

Near term: T4i, 15-85, 50, 70-200.

Sell 15-85 when moving to FF and get kit lens: 5D or 6D, 24-104, 70-200.