Wide angle/standard zoom

[SJTstudios]

Hey guys, I'm having a bit of a dilemma, I'm trying to decide which way to go gear wise to accommodate my 70-200 2.8 l is ii. I am an enthusiast looking to move up to a ff, and shoot landscapes, portraits, and some sports(why I got the 70-200 and my extenders.)
I'm deciding between a canon 16-35 2.8 and maybe a sigma 50mm 1.4/canon 1.2 l/new canon 50mm 1.4
Benefits:
1.) a great wide angle that is good for portraits
2.) a good 50mm as an upgrade from my 1.8 that will bridge the gap
Cons:
1.) there is the fact that I may need a bunch of filters, which could be worth it.
2.)it may be more expensive

Or, a canon 17-40 and a canon 24-70 2.8 l mark 1
Benefits:
1.) a good standard zoom that works for portraits, and vacation
2.) those along with my 70-200, I have constant 77mm, so I can carry less filters.
Cons:
1.)may be heavier
2.)the weight may be a problem.
3.) if I only use the 24-70, it may be hard to take wide scenes.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Crop or FF? It makes a huge difference.
For FF, a 16-35mm l is a good choice, I recently bought one and its really good. I suspect that a replacement may be coming, prices have dropped a lot recently.
Unfortunately, I do not know of a ultra wide to telephoto zoom lens that is good. Its very hard to build a zoom wide angle lens, so 2X or 3X is the standard.
I made do fine with a 17mm prime and a 24-104 combination before I fell for the 16-35. The older Tokina 17mm f/3.5 lenses are really a good value. If you can find one, they are relatively low priced. I'm keeping mine, at least for now.

 

[IIIHobbs]

Hey guys, I'm having a bit of a dilemma, I'm trying to decide which way to go gear wise to accommodate my 70-200 2.8 l is ii. I am an enthusiast looking to move up to a ff, and shoot landscapes, portraits, and some sports(why I got the 70-200 and my extenders.)

Making lens choices having a Crop Sensor Body looking ahead to a FF Body is difficult. The 70-200 you have currently will have much shorter reach on a FF and therefore your dilemma will be different with a different body.

You have the cream of the crop zoom now, so you will want to find something comparable in your next selection. I would also recommend the 16-35 f2.8 II. On a crop sensor it provides a 24-55 zoom. This will give you the range, speed and image quality you are familiar with form your 70-200 f2.8 II.

If/when you move to a FF body, I suspect you will find yourself wanting a 24-70 and a 300 to gain back the range lost without the 1.6x crop factor.

 

[Random Orbits]

Assuming your budget is around 3k (16-35L II + 50L that you listed under option 1), I would suggest the 24-70L II and the ef-s 10-22 (used/refurbished, which you would sell when you move to FF). Assuming you don't need larger apertures for speed or thinner DOF, the 24-70 II (based on TDP charts) performs about as well as the 24L II, 35L at f/2.8 and smaller and is much better than any canon 50mm. The 16-35L II softens a bit at the longer end of the zoom range, so I tend to use it at the wider end.

When you move to FF, you could sell the 10-22 and use the proceeds to offset the cost of the FF camera or use it to fund a FF UWA lens. 24mm is wide enough most of the time and how much you'd need the 16-24mm range is based on your individual style.

I switched to FF earlier this year, and I have your option 1 setup. When I travel, I bring the 16-35, 50 and the 70-200. It works well -- it covers landscapes, low light and has some reach. If I didn't use the 50 at apertures larger than f/2.8 so often, I would definitely consider a 24-70 in place of the 50. Even now, I'm considering getting the 24-70 II in the future if it proves to be robust and as sharp as the initial reviews indicate and when prices soften a bit.

 

[robbymack]

When are you looking to buy a ff camera? If soon then maybe the 16-35 or 17-40 if you want to save some scratch. If the ff purchase is in the future then the efs 17-552.8 covers all your bases above. You can sell it at 70-80% of what you paid for it and chalk the loss up to a long term rental fee.

 

[AJ]

How about buying your FF camera with the 24-105/4 kit lens, then adding 50/1.4 (Sigma or Canon) and an ultrawide (17-40/4L or 16-35/2.8L).

You'll have a versatile walk-around and travel lens, thin-dof portrait and artsy lens, and a landscaping lens.

 

[jabbott]

I went through the same dilemma moving up to FF... now I am shooting with the 17-40, 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4L IS for weight savings and good optics while traveling. For non-travel I use the 24-70 I and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II which are significantly heavier. I chose the 17-40 over the 16-35 because it's equally sharp on the wide end and it's 33% lighter. Prior to FF I was shooting with the 10-22, 24-70 I, 50 f/1.4 and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II which overall weighed about 4 pounds more.

 

[RS2021]

Well... 16-35 LII hands down for FF. It comes into its own on the full frame. Expecting any near term replacements for ver II is being too optimistic. Just look at the typical replacement cycle for other major lenses. 16-35 ver 1 was introduced in 2001, and ver II in 2007, but contrary to assuming ver III is due every 6 years, I'd guess they addressed (or tried to address) key issues in ver2 that couldn't wait; canon could very well let it languish for longer now that it has been attended to "recently".

And there are a slew of other important lenses that are much older which sorely need replacement.

 

[AmbientLight]

With the new 24-70 Mark II zoom being out, you might consider purchasing your gear in such a way that adding this zoom later on will make sense. Variants with either 17-40mm zoom and 50 f1.2 prime (I've got this combination) or the 16-35 zoom and 50 f1.2 prime both make sense in this regard, because there is little overlap in how you would use the 50 (wide open) and how you might later use the 24-70 (for anything f2.8 and above).

If you go for either the old or new 24-70 zoom you might want to add the 14mm prime. As long as you have 14mm and 24mm focal lengths covered there is not so much need for a lens with a focal length in between, so you might do with this combination as well.

It really depends on where a zoom is more important for you, for wide angle or for standard focal lengths.

 

[SJTstudios]

Thanks guys, I'm thinking of going for option 1