Sell 16-35 II for 24-70 II/24TSE?

[rmfagan]

Just looking for some feedback on shuffling my lens stable/adding a lens. I've noticed I am rarely using 16mm on my 16-35 and often find myself wanting more reach, which lends itself well to the 24-70 II, yes? But for landscape, I COULD see myself wanting a bit wider. So... How realistic is it to expect to be able to use shift on the TS-E to get me a wider FOV, thus satisfying my desire for "there if I need it" wide ability?

Does anyone see a downside to selling my 16-35 II and picking up the 24-70 II and 24 TSE II? I currently have a nifty 50 and the 70-200 IS II as well. Likely swapping the 50 for whatever Canon cones out with soon(?) OR the 50 ART.

 

[Grumbaki]

I'd say it depends on your ratio of tripoded landscape in your work. I was thinking of some kind of similar move but due to my mostly photojournalistic style, I ended up giving up the idea of TSE... (kinda :'()

 

[Eldar]

I have just put my 16-35 up for sale, because I am not too happy with the IQ and for normal shooting I find 24mm wide enough. For the really wide angle I use Zeiss 15mm f2.8 and the 17mm f4L TS-E. I never use these wide angle lenses for people. The distortion is just too much off center.

The 24-70 f2.8L II is without question my workhorse, wheras the 16-35 is a dust collector. The 24 TS-E II is a phenomenal lens, with exceptional IQ and it is a joy to use. But of course, it has all the peculiarities of a manual tilt and shift.

If I were in your shoes, I would probably consider the 17mm TS-E in combination with the 24-70. IQ is up there with the 24 TS-E and it gives you the wider angle you may miss for landscapes etc. I love both my TS-E lenses, but I probably use the 17mm more than the 24mm.

 

[pedro]

Time for Canon to pull out a 12-24 F/2.8 or F/4.0 ... Did some nightscapes recently and would have appreciated to go as wide as 12mm despite some vignetting...

 

[Random Orbits]

I would suggest getting the 24-70 II first and deciding how that works for you, and if you need wider, then take a look at the TS-E 17 as Eldar suggested. Unless you need the movements, it might not be the best use of your money to have two excellent lenses at 24mm: 24-70 II and the TS-E 24.

Yes, TS-Es make it easier to get panos because of shift, but it some cases, it is not a substitute for a wider lens in some cases. Most of the time it works well, but think of scenes where there is a lot of movement due to wind or due to animals moving through the frame. One option is get the TS-E 17 and use the 1.4x to approximate a TS-E 24. It won't be as sharp as either the TS-E 24 or the 24-70 II but others have used it and it's worked well enough for them.

I too have the 16-35II but rarely use it. I use the TS-Es most of the time, so I only use the 16-35II when travelling light. A 16-35/50/70-xxx is an easy way to cover a wide focal length range and handle indoor/outdoor lighting and still get high IQ.

 

[Dylan777]

@ OP

24-70 II is a great lens for general shooting. The 24-70 lenght doesn't have the "wow" factor that you get from UWA lenses. I sold my 16-35 II for lower IQ reason. I do plan to add Canon 14mm in near future.

 

[Vern]

I'd say it depends on your ratio of tripoded landscape in your work. I was thinking of some kind of similar move but due to my mostly photojournalistic style, I ended up giving up the idea of TSE... (kinda :'()

+1, the 24TS is one of my favorite lenses. If you thrive on using a tripod, live view to focus, love panos and enjoy the pace of this type of photography, it can definitely do anything you want in landscape (assuming moving elements don't detract from the stitched images). The close focus ability and tilt add an element of creativity that you can't get otherwise. When I use this lens, I tend to leave everything else at home - it is all consuming.

 

[Quasimodo]

@ OP

24-70 II is a great lens for general shooting. The 24-70 lenght doesn't have the "wow" factor that you get from UWA lenses. I sold my 16-35 II for lower IQ reason. I do plan to add Canon 14mm in near future.

I love the 14L II, great IQ. It is on my wishlist.

 

[Ruined]

Just looking for some feedback on shuffling my lens stable/adding a lens. I've noticed I am rarely using 16mm on my 16-35 and often find myself wanting more reach, which lends itself well to the 24-70 II, yes? But for landscape, I COULD see myself wanting a bit wider. So... How realistic is it to expect to be able to use shift on the TS-E to get me a wider FOV, thus satisfying my desire for "there if I need it" wide ability?

Does anyone see a downside to selling my 16-35 II and picking up the 24-70 II and 24 TSE II? I currently have a nifty 50 and the 70-200 IS II as well. Likely swapping the 50 for whatever Canon cones out with soon(?) OR the 50 ART.

The 16-35 II - in my opinion - is primarily designed for photographers that need both an ultra wide and a standard wide in the same lens without needing a lens swap.

While this may be obvious, the point is a 16-35mm is very useful for weddings/events where you may not have time to swap out lenses and need the focal length flexibility. The tradeoff for that flexibility is sharpness, as various primes offer comparable focal lengths with better sharpness - but the 16-35 II is the best you are going to get if you want that ultra wide-standard wide flexibility in a single lens.

So, in summary, I would keep the 16-35 II if you think you might be in events/weddings/photojournalism where you need that focal length versatility. If you are just shooting landscape on your own time, there are better lenses for this purpose you can get like the TS-Es.

 

[mackguyver]

The 16-35 II - in my opinion - is primarily designed for photographers that need both an ultra wide and a standard wide in the same lens without needing a lens swap.

I agree completely. It's a very handy lens, but not one that will bowl you over with it's IQ. With a bit of PP, it can give great results, but overall it's more handy than it is amazing.

Unless you need TS or just the 24mm focal length, the 24-70 is a much more practical lens and will knock your socks off compared to the 16-35. You're better off buying a killer general purpose lens first and a specialized lens like the TS-E 24 later.

 

[Quasimodo]

The 16-35 II - in my opinion - is primarily designed for photographers that need both an ultra wide and a standard wide in the same lens without needing a lens swap.

I agree completely. It's a very hand lens, but not one that will bowl you over with it's IQ. With a bit of PP, it can give great results, but overall it's more handy than it is amazing.

+ 1

 

[tron]

I think that the best of 2 worlds would be to combine the 24-70 2.8 II with the TS-E17.
At least when you cannot carry a ton of lenses with you.

 

[rmfagan]

Loving the various opinions on this topic, thank you! I thought I should add that I shoot a fairly wide variety of things.

For my college paper I have been covering basketball and football (the 16-35 is often too wide for either, while the 24-70 seems it would be perfect for near action on the baseline and action in the end zone). I do some landscape. I like to play with still life's.

I also use photography as an excuse to travel: currently I'm in Japan finishing up a Monkeys/Cranes/Swans/Eagles trip. Later this year I'll be in Greece (Athens) and Turkey (Istanbul, Cappadocia, Pamukkale), and in December am going to Iceland for landscape work. As I live near NYC I'd also like to get in and shoot some buildings, bridges, etc.

So the 24-70 is a certain need as both a sports lens and a travel lens. With the amount of buildings and landscapes this year in my travels, I thought a TS-E could be worthwhile. The 17 is indeed intriguing as a mate to the 24-70, but I'm worried about the inability to use filters. Long exposures? ND Grads?

I'm not sure if this info will help refine the recommendations but I thought it might be useful. Thanks again all!

 

[Eldar]

Loving the various opinions on this topic, thank you! I thought I should add that I shoot a fairly wide variety of things.

For my college paper I have been covering basketball and football (the 16-35 is often too wide for either, while the 24-70 seems it would be perfect for near action on the baseline and action in the end zone). I do some landscape. I like to play with still life's.

I also use photography as an excuse to travel: currently I'm in Japan finishing up a Monkeys/Cranes/Swans/Eagles trip. Later this year I'll be in Greece (Athens) and Turkey (Istanbul, Cappadocia, Pamukkale), and in December am going to Iceland for landscape work. As I live near NYC I'd also like to get in and shoot some buildings, bridges, etc.

So the 24-70 is a certain need as both a sports lens and a travel lens. With the amount of buildings and landscapes this year in my travels, I thought a TS-E could be worthwhile. The 17 is indeed intriguing as a mate to the 24-70, but I'm worried about the inability to use filters. Long exposures? ND Grads?

I'm not sure if this info will help refine the recommendations but I thought it might be useful. Thanks again all!

For a place like NY and also for landscape, the 17mm is phenomenal. There is a filter solution for the 17mm TS-E from Lee. See link below. I have not used it myself, but I´m sure a number of CR members have.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/official-lee-filter-solution-for-the-canon-ts-e-17-f4l/

 

[mackguyver]

Loving the various opinions on this topic, thank you! I thought I should add that I shoot a fairly wide variety of things.

For my college paper I have been covering basketball and football (the 16-35 is often too wide for either, while the 24-70 seems it would be perfect for near action on the baseline and action in the end zone). I do some landscape. I like to play with still life's.

I also use photography as an excuse to travel: currently I'm in Japan finishing up a Monkeys/Cranes/Swans/Eagles trip. Later this year I'll be in Greece (Athens) and Turkey (Istanbul, Cappadocia, Pamukkale), and in December am going to Iceland for landscape work. As I live near NYC I'd also like to get in and shoot some buildings, bridges, etc.

So the 24-70 is a certain need as both a sports lens and a travel lens. With the amount of buildings and landscapes this year in my travels, I thought a TS-E could be worthwhile. The 17 is indeed intriguing as a mate to the 24-70, but I'm worried about the inability to use filters. Long exposures? ND Grads?

I'm not sure if this info will help refine the recommendations but I thought it might be useful. Thanks again all!

I can understand the draw of the TS-E lenses, but unless you plan to use a tripod and spend a good deal of time shooting, the benefits will mostly be lost. On the other hand, if you're going to those places to do just that, the decision is a little harder, but I'd still lean towards the 24-70 for it's versatility. I bought specialty lenses first, general lenses later, and if I had to do it over again, I would have done the exact opposite. It's sort of like buying a tux when you don't own a nice suite.

 

[Eldar]

Loving the various opinions on this topic, thank you! I thought I should add that I shoot a fairly wide variety of things.

For my college paper I have been covering basketball and football (the 16-35 is often too wide for either, while the 24-70 seems it would be perfect for near action on the baseline and action in the end zone). I do some landscape. I like to play with still life's.

I also use photography as an excuse to travel: currently I'm in Japan finishing up a Monkeys/Cranes/Swans/Eagles trip. Later this year I'll be in Greece (Athens) and Turkey (Istanbul, Cappadocia, Pamukkale), and in December am going to Iceland for landscape work. As I live near NYC I'd also like to get in and shoot some buildings, bridges, etc.

So the 24-70 is a certain need as both a sports lens and a travel lens. With the amount of buildings and landscapes this year in my travels, I thought a TS-E could be worthwhile. The 17 is indeed intriguing as a mate to the 24-70, but I'm worried about the inability to use filters. Long exposures? ND Grads?

I'm not sure if this info will help refine the recommendations but I thought it might be useful. Thanks again all!

I can understand the draw of the TS-E lenses, but unless you plan to use a tripod and spend a good deal of time shooting, the benefits will mostly be lost. On the other hand, if you're going to those places to do just that, the decision is a little harder, but I'd still lean towards the 24-70 for it's versatility. I bought specialty lenses first, general lenses later, and if I had to do it over again, I would have done the exact opposite. It's sort of like buying a tux when you don't own a nice suite.

Agree. The TS-E should be in addition to the 24-70. A 24mm TS-E is a great lens and it makes the use of filters easier, since it has the same diameter as the 24-70. But then you loose that UWA capability.

 

[Quasimodo]

Loving the various opinions on this topic, thank you! I thought I should add that I shoot a fairly wide variety of things.

For my college paper I have been covering basketball and football (the 16-35 is often too wide for either, while the 24-70 seems it would be perfect for near action on the baseline and action in the end zone). I do some landscape. I like to play with still life's.

I also use photography as an excuse to travel: currently I'm in Japan finishing up a Monkeys/Cranes/Swans/Eagles trip. Later this year I'll be in Greece (Athens) and Turkey (Istanbul, Cappadocia, Pamukkale), and in December am going to Iceland for landscape work. As I live near NYC I'd also like to get in and shoot some buildings, bridges, etc.

So the 24-70 is a certain need as both a sports lens and a travel lens. With the amount of buildings and landscapes this year in my travels, I thought a TS-E could be worthwhile. The 17 is indeed intriguing as a mate to the 24-70, but I'm worried about the inability to use filters. Long exposures? ND Grads?

I'm not sure if this info will help refine the recommendations but I thought it might be useful. Thanks again all!

I envy you going all these cool places to shoot.

Like Eldar says, there is a adaptor for 17TS in the Lee 100 system, and the adaptor is relatively cheap (that is if you are already in the system. The system on the other hand is quite expensive to get into This combined with a solid ball-head to give you the possibility to do some serious pano-work sound like a winner.

Unless like has been mentioned here already, the 17TS requires a trained (for manual focus) shooter to use as a go-to lens. I have it, but always use a tripod unless I am leaning into a wall shooting at F22 and infitinity focus

If you have not tried the 14L II, give it a try. It is impressively wide and sharp. My first sold pictures was with that lens, and I am absolutely in love with it, except for the steep price.

 

[rmfagan]

I suppose I should mention that I have (and use extensively) a Gitzo GT3541, modified with a Markins TH300 base, and a Markins Q10i head. I also use their L-Bracket for my 5D3. (Side note: the Q10 worked more than fine, phenomenally even, with the 500 II for me here in Hokkaido for cranes and eagles without a Gimbal extension).

I am very comfortable with using a tripod and certainly would for any landscape or building work with either TS-E lens. I'll likely pick up a pano slide to ensure easy stitching though.

Also, either TS would be in addition to, not instead of, the 24-70.

 

[Ruined]

I suppose I should mention that I have (and use extensively) a Gitzo GT3541, modified with a Markins TH300 base, and a Markins Q10i head. I also use their L-Bracket for my 5D3. (Side note: the Q10 worked more than fine, phenomenally even, with the 500 II for me here in Hokkaido for cranes and eagles without a Gimbal extension).

I am very comfortable with using a tripod and certainly would for any landscape or building work with either TS-E lens. I'll likely pick up a pano slide to ensure easy stitching though.

Also, either TS would be in addition to, not instead of, the 24-70.

So, then, I think the answer is:
1) You should get the 24-70 II
2) If you are not doing events/photojournalism of any sort, you will get better IQ with a UWA prime than a 16-35 II. Some of these include the 14mm, 17mm TS-E, and 24mm TS-E.
3) Evaluate how much you really will use the TS-E features, because if the answer is not a lot the 14mm would probably serve you better for largest rectilinear wide angle to complement the 24mm offered by the 24-70 II.
4) If you decide you will use the TS-E features extensively, next consider would you rather have a much wider but more atypical focal length not covered by the 24-70 II such as the 17, or duplicate the common 24mm landscape focal length already covered by the 24-70 II, but with added TS-E features.
5) If you find yourself rarely using wider than 24mm and you also don't think you'd use TS-E features extensively, save some money and use the 24-70 II by itself - as it is fantastic at 24mm.

 

[DaveMiko]

Just looking for some feedback on shuffling my lens stable/adding a lens. I've noticed I am rarely using 16mm on my 16-35 and often find myself wanting more reach, which lends itself well to the 24-70 II, yes? But for landscape, I COULD see myself wanting a bit wider. So... How realistic is it to expect to be able to use shift on the TS-E to get me a wider FOV, thus satisfying my desire for "there if I need it" wide ability?

Does anyone see a downside to selling my 16-35 II and picking up the 24-70 II and 24 TSE II? I currently have a nifty 50 and the 70-200 IS II as well. Likely swapping the 50 for whatever Canon cones out with soon(?) OR the 50 ART.

I sold my 16-35 when I realized it was just gathering dust. Now, my 24-70 is my most used lens. In my opinion, 24 mm is wide enough in almost all situations. So, by all means, get rid of your 16-35 and grab a 24-70.