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

[TheLaxPlayer]

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.

I appreciate the input, but I have a crop body Nikon now and usually use a 35mm prime. I rarely need anything wider. I also have a 18-55 with it, and find it's rare that I ever use wider than 24mm... I don't think I'm going to miss it, but if it becomes a problem I'll pick up the 10-18.

 

[pdirestajr]

Or you could have just bought a weather sealed Pentax with a weather sealed kit lens for under 1k that is better than any of Canon's APS-C cameras. DOH!

 

[TheLaxPlayer]

Or you could have just bought a weather sealed Pentax with a weather sealed kit lens for under 1k that is better than any of Canon's APS-C cameras. DOH!

I will, as soon as they make one. After handling Pentax, Olympus, and Sony cameras I'm pretty sure I could take a nap while they're trying to autofocus.

If I were interested in landscape photography maybe things would be different, but about 90% of the time it will be toddler photography. He's a quick little guy!

 

[bholliman]

My suggestion would be to pick up a EF-S 17-55/2.8 or EF-S 15-85 as a general purpose zoom for the 7DII. I've owned both lenses for use on a 550D and 7D and loved them. Since you are primarily doing people photography, the 17-55 is probably the better selection. Personally, I found the 24+ zoom range too limiting on a APS-C body, I often like to go wider.

The 16-35/4 IS is an excellent lens, but wouldn't be my first choice on a 7DII for people photography. I think the faster maximum aperture and greater zoom range of the 17-55/2.8 will serve you well. 55mm on the long end is equivalent to 88mm on a full frame body and is a very nice portrait focal length.

We have a toddler at home and I certainly agree you need a fast AF system to keep up with them. I've owned a 6D for over 2 years, and love it for landscape and other non-action photography. But, I recently purchased a 5DIII for the primary purpose of keeping up with our toddler and his friends at play. The faster AF (similar to the 7DII) does a great job of nailing focus of fast, randomly moving kids!

Enjoy the new equipment. The little ones grow up very quickly, so getting good pictures now is very important.

 

[mpeeps]

I am glad that when I got serious about digital photography with the purchase of a 7D, I invested in all EF lenses, mostly L lenses. Other than springing for a 10-22, a great uwa on crop sensor, I knew that at one point I would go full frame. Now that I shoot with a 6D and 5DIII, it is all paying off.

 

[tcmatthews]

I would have gone with the Tamron 24-70f2.8 VC. I found f4 is not fast enough in standard zoom on a crop unless shooting landscape. After using a Tamron 28-75f2.8 I found IS is necessary for most indoor use without a flash. Unfortunately Canon does not a 24-70f2.8L IS.

I ended up buying the 15-85IS but if the Tamron was available I would have bought it.

 

[TheLaxPlayer]

My suggestion would be to pick up a EF-S 17-55/2.8 or EF-S 15-85 as a general purpose zoom for the 7DII. I've owned both lenses for use on a 550D and 7D and loved them. Since you are primarily doing people photography, the 17-55 is probably the better selection. Personally, I found the 24+ zoom range too limiting on a APS-C body, I often like to go wider.

The 16-35/4 IS is an excellent lens, but wouldn't be my first choice on a 7DII for people photography. I think the faster maximum aperture and greater zoom range of the 17-55/2.8 will serve you well. 55mm on the long end is equivalent to 88mm on a full frame body and is a very nice portrait focal length.

We have a toddler at home and I certainly agree you need a fast AF system to keep up with them. I've owned a 6D for over 2 years, and love it for landscape and other non-action photography. But, I recently purchased a 5DIII for the primary purpose of keeping up with our toddler and his friends at play. The faster AF (similar to the 7DII) does a great job of nailing focus of fast, randomly moving kids!

Enjoy the new equipment. The little ones grow up very quickly, so getting good pictures now is very important.

The 6D was the camera we wanted earlier on in our search but I think the superior AF of the 7DII will make it the better choice for us right now. The 17-55 f/2.8 was in the running but we decided we'd rather have he 24-70 f/4 as it's better sealed against dust and weather, better IS, adds macro mode, and my wife preferred the extra reach over the extra on the wide end. It was also cheaper to get the 24-70 and the new 50, which also lets us have better isolation if that's the priority at hand.

That said, if they ever add IS to the 24-70 f/2.8 I'll be refreshing CPW like a madman waiting for a deal.

 

[TheLaxPlayer]

I would have gone with the Tamron 24-70f2.8 VC. I found f4 is not fast enough in standard zoom on a crop unless shooting landscape. After using a Tamron 28-75f2.8 I found IS is necessary for most indoor use without a flash. Unfortunately Canon does not a 24-70f2.8L IS.

I ended up buying the 15-85IS but if the Tamron was available I would have bought it.

I'm a bit gun shy on Tamron and Sigma due to less consistent resale values. If Canon adds a 24-70 f/2.8L IS I will likely pick one up but between the Canon offerings today I think the IS matters more to us than the larger aperture on what will basically be our walk around lens, especially given the $1000 price difference between the two. We'll have the 50mm f/1.8 STM on hand for when we're more worried about subject isolation as we'll.

 

[Luds34]

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!

A good friend of mine owns all 3 (7D2, 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/4 IS). He really enjoys the the 16-35 on the 7D as a "normal" zoom lens, even if it doesn't have much reach. We both picked up a 6D a few months back during the ebay sales and where I've been playing around with the 6D alot (my other camera is a 70D) my friend keeps going back to his 7D mark II. The 16-35 doesn't physically extend during zooming which is a small benefit in my humble opinion.

Just my 2 cents, but I would not find 24mm wide enough on crop. Have you considered the 15-85? I picked one up a year ago for ~$400 used. Since you are looking to resell down the road maybe buy the lens(es) used?

 

[Hjalmarg1]

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

You can try the comparison tools at www.the-digital-picture.com but in the 24-35mm range the absoloute winner is the 16-35mm f4L IS.
I had the 24-70mm FL with my 7D(I) and never got really much use until I moved to full frame 5D3 where the 24-70mm FL really shines.
Sigma has for APS-C cameras the 18-35mm f/1.8 which is a fantastic lens and can give you an idea of the usefulness of the 16-35mm in APS-C cameras

 

[Jim Roof]

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, coming from the other side...

Glass is good for 10 times longer than any camera body. I have heard many people say the one thing to never skimp on is lenses. When I was shooting 4x5 film I had a set of lenses that lasted me for over 20 years with only one upgrade along the way as I went through 5 4x5 bodies and systems.

I would encourage anyone who is serious about photography to move away from smaller sensors and into full frame. The world of exceptional glass that is available for anyone with a smaller sensor then becomes completely relevant and appreciated.

 

[Sabaki]

Here's another one of those 2c opinions people throw about.

My buying cycle for my gear list is still another 2-3 years away. A big part of my buying philosophy is future proofing.

Sure you could buy those EF-S lenses but their role in your kit bag seems more stop gap than anything else. Get the 16-35, use it as a general purpose lens for now and once you have your 6Dii someday, you can use it in its full frame glory.

The 24-70 f/4.0 is a good lens but I'll make an assumption that you will always wonder about the f/2.8 mkii version.

I agree with what you've purchased, just make sure you don't have buyers regret 6 months or a year down the line due to not future proofing your purchases.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

OK, I skimmed this thread and... eh. Honestly I'm on my third Sunday afternoon beer as I sit here on CR procrastinating calling the cable company to complain about my rates being too high and the inevitable fight over a better deal. But I know everyone on CR is anxiously awaiting my input on this so I guess I'll toss in my 2c...

IMHO - I like the OP's style and I think his posts are cool. He and his wife are very blessed to have a happy healthy and quick toddler to photograph. I think the 7D-II will be a perfect camera to shoot the little guy (?) with to get him in action shots. Also, the choices of lens will work great. However, in my experience with crop vs. FF, the wider the better. At least that's usually my journalistic style. So go ahead and pick up the 16-35 ASAP. I agree with the other poster that on a crop sensor, the 16-35 will be more "normal" and useful.

But it sounds like you (the OP) are going to buy the 5D Mark IV pretty soon anyway after it comes out based on reading between the lines in your posts. FF is really what you want. And that's great! That way, both mom and dad will have their own camera to shoot with and hopefully the busy toddler won't have to suffer through a trial separation due to the fighting over who gets to use which body! Because I own the 7D-II and the 5D3 and they are both superb. The 5D-IV will more than likely be another stellar 5D body once Canon irons out the inevitable kinks in the first year.

Now if I haven't baited this thread enough, let me know but I figure this will be good for at least another 5 - 10 posts in response and the OP likely can't resist either! Bwahh Ha Ha Haaa!

 

[TheLaxPlayer]

OK, I skimmed this thread and... eh. Honestly I'm on my third Sunday afternoon beer as I sit here on CR procrastinating calling the cable company to complain about my rates being too high and the inevitable fight over a better deal. But I know everyone on CR is anxiously awaiting my input on this so I guess I'll toss in my 2c...

IMHO - I like the OP's style and I think his posts are cool. He and his wife are very blessed to have a happy healthy and quick toddler to photograph. I think the 7D-II will be a perfect camera to shoot the little guy (?) with to get him in action shots. Also, the choices of lens will work great. However, in my experience with crop vs. FF, the wider the better. At least that's usually my journalistic style. So go ahead and pick up the 16-35 ASAP. I agree with the other poster that on a crop sensor, the 16-35 will be more "normal" and useful.

But it sounds like you (the OP) are going to buy the 5D Mark IV pretty soon anyway after it comes out based on reading between the lines in your posts. FF is really what you want. And that's great! That way, both mom and dad will have their own camera to shoot with and hopefully the busy toddler won't have to suffer through a trial separation due to the fighting over who gets to use which body! Because I own the 7D-II and the 5D3 and they are both superb. The 5D-IV will more than likely be another stellar 5D body once Canon irons out the inevitable kinks in the first year.

Now if I haven't baited this thread enough, let me know but I figure this will be good for at least another 5 - 10 posts in response and the OP likely can't resist either! Bwahh Ha Ha Haaa!

I'll take the bait

I've only had the 7DII and 24-70 for a couple days now but so far I'm finding that most of our shots are in the 35-70mm range, so I guess wide angle just isn't too useful for us right now. I am very impressed with the autofocus on the 7DII. It's easy to tell it where to focus, but it's almost pointless... the camera is very good at determining what I'm trying to photograph and quickly nails the correct focus.

This could obviously change but at the moment I don't see why we'd move to FF in the future. That was the original plan but it seems that if the 7DII is good enough in low light (it is) the only real advantage of FF would be if I wanted a fast wide angle lens. I really don't... For now I'll enjoy the 24-70 on the 7DII. I like the focal length better than the 17-55, f/4 is usually fast enough, and there is very little distortion or vignetting on the cropped sensor. The 7DII (or III or IV, who knows) should also be pretty ideal to work with a 70-200 f/2.8 if the little guy gets into sports in a few years.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

LaxPlayer, sounds like you found a winner! However, don't forget that your 24-70 is really a 38-112 lens on that camera. And that's a great range too! But as time moves forward, I think you might find a need for a wider lens once you want to get more of the environment and other kids in the shot. For instance, indoor parties and group events at the zoo, the park and several moving kids at a friend's house. Once you find yourself backing up into people, walls, furniture and holding the camera up over your head to get as much in the shot as possible, you'll know it's time to get a FF body or invest in a EF-S 10-22 lens (which = about 16-35). In addition, you can be more creative with a wide lens as you come in closer to the subject and offset their face with what's around them.

I'm editing this later because I also meant to say that the EF 16-35 L (2.8 v 1 or 2 or the f/4) lenses are all great lenses. I own both the f/2.8-1 and f/4 IS and the 16-35 is my favorite lens on FF or Crop. You don't have to get the EF-S 10-22 unless you want the maximum width from your 7D. The 16-35 would still give you more width than the 24-70. (Obviously.)

The 7D-II is a wonderful body and I'm glad you like it. I certainly like mine and hopefully as you get more comfortable with it you will post a few of your favorite pics here! Have a great summer!!

 

[Infraspace]

Id really recommend the 16-35. I had a 24-70 2.8 for a while on my 600D. Replaced it for a 16-35 f2.8 and have not been regretting my decision. I picked up a 7D2 about 1 and a half week ago. And it lives with my 16-35. You can extend your reach with multiple lenses later. I got the 16-35, the 18-55 from my 600D, a 50 1.4, a 70-300 4-5.6 (Which is more or less useless) and a fisheye. I almost only use the 16-35. So as a first lens i would reccomend that

 

[TheLaxPlayer]

Maybe I'll need to zoom out more when he gets taller

I like the 24-70 for now.

 

[ReggieABrown]

For what it's worth, I'm not a "lens reviewer" but I "reviewed" the 16-35 f4L lens with it mounted on a 7d Mark ii.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ_7MPETbGw

 

[HighLowISO]

For what it's worth, I'm not a "lens reviewer" but I "reviewed" the 16-35 f4L lens with it mounted on a 7d Mark ii.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ_7MPETbGw

Excellent review. Thanks!

 

[Arty]

I would rather have the 24-105L on crop than either the 16-35 or the 24-70 F4IS. Frankly, in many instances, I would prefer to use a 35F2IS on crop or full frame, especially for low light use. You can pick up the 24-105L and the 35F2IS for little more than the price of one of the other lenses, and get greater overall utility.