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

[mangobutter]

Hands down for lenses from wide to standard, I would go for lenses *designed* for crop sensors. If you are using wide to standard EF (full frame) lenses on a crop body, you are wasting your money and carrying extra weight for no reason. You are also getting softer pictures and slower speeds (especially when using 2.8 lenses)

So for a crop, the Sigma 18-35 hands down. It will act as a 2.8 lens does on full frame. It's image circle is optimized for crop sensors so you aren't paying extra money for glass you won't and can't use on crop.

Go for EF-S (modern ones) or other lenses produced specifically for crop sensors. This is how you maximize everything. Money, lightness, IQ.

 

[Famateur]

TheLaxPlayer,

As I've read this thread, it sounds to me like you've thought this through very well, have an informed understanding of the tradeoffs and made a choice you're happy with. Well done.

For what it's worth, I have a 70D and started with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS. It's a fantastic lens, but since purchasing the EF 24-70F4L IS and EF 70-200 F4L IS six months ago (each with $200 rebates), I've used the 17-55 all of...once. I'll probably sell the 17-55 to get a 16-35 F4 when I get closer to switching to full frame (or just to subsidize the full frame body).

The 24-70 stays attached in my camera bag, but I am frequently switching it out for the 70-200F4 IS. I've been absolutely thrilled with both. I thought I wanted the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, but unless/until I'm shooting for money more often or doing indoor sports, I just don't see the point of the extra cost and weight. The 70-200 F4 IS is plenty sharp. I'm happy with the F4 bokeh on both, and that'll just get better when I move to full frame.

Anyway, enjoy the new camera and lens!

PS: It's interesting to note that you're pleased enough with the 7DII that your move to full frame is less certain. I've wondered if I really "need" to move to full frame for similar reasons, but I think I will anyway. Not sure if you can relate to this comparison, but I thought I was perfectly happy with 9MM for years...until I tried a .45. Like most things, there are advantages to each, but after years of .45, I can't imagine going back to 9MM.

 

[MiamiC70]

TheLaxPlayer,

As I've read this thread, it sounds to me like you've thought this through very well, have an informed understanding of the tradeoffs and made a choice you're happy with. Well done.

For what it's worth, I have a 70D and started with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS. It's a fantastic lens, but since purchasing the EF 24-70F4L IS and EF 70-200 F4L IS six months ago (each with $200 rebates), I've used the 17-55 all of...once. I'll probably sell the 17-55 to get a 16-35 F4 when I get closer to switching to full frame (or just to subsidize the full frame body).

The 24-70 stays attached in my camera bag, but I am frequently switching it out for the 70-200F4 IS. I've been absolutely thrilled with both. I thought I wanted the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, but unless/until I'm shooting for money more often or doing indoor sports, I just don't see the point of the extra cost and weight. The 70-200 F4 IS is plenty sharp. I'm happy with the F4 bokeh on both, and that'll just get better when I move to full frame.

Anyway, enjoy the new camera and lens!

PS: It's interesting to note that you're pleased enough with the 7DII that your move to full frame is less certain. I've wondered if I really "need" to move to full frame for similar reasons, but I think I will anyway. Not sure if you can relate to this comparison, but I thought I was perfectly happy with 9MM for years...until I tried a .45. Like most things, there are advantages to each, but after years of .45, I can't imagine going back to 9MM.

Same lenses I have picked up for my 70D. 16-35mm, 24-70mm & 70-200mm all in f/4

 

[jd7]

For what it's worth, I have a 70D and started with the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS. It's a fantastic lens, but since purchasing the EF 24-70F4L IS and EF 70-200 F4L IS six months ago (each with $200 rebates), I've used the 17-55 all of...once. I'll probably sell the 17-55 to get a 16-35 F4 when I get closer to switching to full frame (or just to subsidize the full frame body).

Just another $0.02 opinion ...

My experience was almost the opposite of Famateur's. For ages I used a Sigma 24-70 2.8 on a crop camera before eventually picking up a second-hand 17-55 2.8 after reading so many good reports about it on CR. After that, the 24-70 gathered dust until I switched to a FF body. I felt like the 17-55 range made "more sense" on crop, giving you the ability to go from wide(ish) to long normal (short telephoto?), and I felt like the combination of 17-55 and 70-200 made a much more versatile pair than a 24-70 and 70-200. Generally, I would agree with the others above recommending that for wide to normal focal lengths for a crop body, you are better off with lenses designed for crop.

That said, each to their own of course. And one thing I do think 24-70 on a crop body is good for is portraits - which seems to be the OP's primary use case.

 

[LonelyBoy]

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.

The EF-S lenses are so affordable though! And better than they're given credit for - I kind of wish I'd gotten the 7D2 instead of my 5D3 just to be able to continue using my 18-135 STM (and may just get the SL2 when it comes out). I'd also, then, be looking at a used (~$200) 55-250 STM instead of the (~$1000 used) 70-300L. I couldn't resist the FF siren's call, though. I just wish there were a 7-8x zoom for FF on par with the 18-135 STM.