Wide-angle lens for my camera

F

froot

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
11,363
Reaction score
27
Location
Snorries
I recently got myself the Canon 7D mkii, and am looking for lenses now... I'm just not entirely sure what to get, between three of these.

I've been lucky enough to use my father's lenses up to now, which are all pretty great.

I have been looking at the following three lenses, all from Canon. Sigma and Tamron (for the wide angle lenses) are not an option.

16-35mm L f/2.8 ii
16-35mm L f/4
24-70mm L f/4

I have been told that the 16-35mm f/4 is basically the follow-up to the f/2.8 ii and based on the reviews, I would believe the f/4 is a really really great lens.
I've been using the 16-35mm f/2.8 ii for a while now and it's amazing in low-light, but it does cost R5000 more than the f/4.

The f/4 has a great advantage over the f/2.8 having IS, and comparison photos show it plain as day.

I like the 24-70mm f/4 too, but am concerned that the jump from 16 to 24 as my widest focal length might cost me a little in terms of landscape photos. The addition of the 35-70mm focal length would however be welcome, as 35mm is not a lot of reach.

To get to my required usage, I do a fair amount of landscape or nature photography, and then a little bit of people photography.

The two f/4 lenses are ~R16k while the 16-35mm f/2.8 lens is R21k.
 
froot said:
To get to my required usage, I do a fair amount of landscape or nature photography, and then a little bit of people photography.
Click to expand...

Pretty much all three require different lenses to some degree. If you're looking at wide-angle, the 24-70 is 39mm at the shorter end on a crop sensor, which isn't great for landscape. Nature photography (I'm assuming wildlife, correct me if I'm wrong) requires extremes on the other side, you need much longer lenses. And for portraits you're best of for something in the 85mm-135mm range.
 
I've got the 16-35 f/2.8 and if I had to replace it I'd probably go for the 17-40 f/4. It's less expensive and plenty sharp by all accounts.

When I broke my 24-70 I replaced that with a 24-105 f/4 and I really do love that lens, especially on the APS-C bodies. I was willing to forgo that extra stop in lieu of the extra range.

If you're shooting a lot of landscapes you're probably using sticks anyway so IS might not be all that relevant.
 
Randhir said:
Pretty much all three require different lenses to some degree. If you're looking at wide-angle, the 24-70 is 39mm at the shorter end on a crop sensor, which isn't great for landscape. Nature photography (I'm assuming wildlife, correct me if I'm wrong) requires extremes on the other side, you need much longer lenses. And for portraits you're best of for something in the 85mm-135mm range.
Click to expand...

I am sorted with long lenses for wildlife, I have a 100-400mm ii at my disposal.

bwana said:
I've got the 16-35 f/2.8 and if I had to replace it I'd probably go for the 17-40 f/4. It's less expensive and plenty sharp by all accounts.

When I broke my 24-70 I replaced that with a 24-105 f/4 and I really do love that lens, especially on the APS-C bodies. I was willing to forgo that extra stop in lieu of the extra range.

If you're shooting a lot of landscapes you're probably using sticks anyway so IS might not be all that relevant.
Click to expand...

Reviews seem to favour the 16-35 f/4 way above the 17-40 in terms of sharpness.
The 16-35 f/4 and the 17-40 are pretty close in terms of pricing (perhaps 2k difference).
 
froot said:
I am sorted with long lenses for wildlife, I have a 100-400mm ii at my disposal.
Click to expand...

Then you're going to have to choose between wide and portrait, if you're only getting one.
 
Randhir said:
Then you're going to have to choose between wide and portrait, if you're only getting one.
Click to expand...

For now I am only planning on getting one.
If I got the 16-35 I would probably get something like a 50 or 80mm or so lens at a later stage.
 
froot said:
For now I am only planning on getting one.
If I got the 16-35 I would probably get something like a 50 or 80mm or so lens at a later stage.
Click to expand...

On a crop sensor that 16-35 isn't so bad on the long end for portraits I guess. So go with that.
 
But 24-whatever isn't wide-angle on a crop body? So if you want something wide, go with the 16-whatever. Or the EF-S 10-18mm. Cheap and good and wide.
 
proze said:
But 24-whatever isn't wide-angle on a crop body? So if you want something wide, go with the 16-whatever. Or the EF-S 10-18mm. Cheap and good and wide.
Click to expand...

I want to stay away from EF-S lenses because I plan on adding a full-frame camera at some stage.
The 10-18mm has way more barrel distortion than I care to want.
 
proze said:
But 24-whatever isn't wide-angle on a crop body? So if you want something wide, go with the 16-whatever. Or the EF-S 10-18mm. Cheap and good and wide.
Click to expand...

I'd argue 24 is barely wide angle even on a FF :P
 
froot said:
I want to stay away from EF-S lenses because I plan on adding a full-frame camera at some stage.
The 10-18mm has way more barrel distortion than I care to want.
Click to expand...

Then look at at the Canon 10-22, none of the lenses you are considering are really wide angle on crop, they are all effectively just midrange zooms...
 
prOd said:
Oh snap, well I find 20mm is a sweet spot for me, although I wouldn't mind some extra girth ;)
Click to expand...

I live on the other end of the scale. My 16-35 is my least used lens. I keep meaning to sell it but I know the second I do I'll need it. Actually it might be my second least used lens - I forgot about my 50mm f/1.4.
 
proze said:
This might be of interest to you, because you have (until the D500) the best crop sensor camera on the market: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5678273556/opinion-the-myth-of-the-upgrade-path
Click to expand...

Things were a lot different when I was starting out because the bodies available at the time sort of made the decision for me. When the sports bug started nibbling I was shooting a 400D and there were two upgrade options available the 6 fps 50D or the 10 fps 1dmk3. Although not fullframe the APS-H 1Dmk3 couldn't take EF-S lenses so every lens choice was going to be EF because I knew I was going to want the 1Dmk3. These days, with the 7Dmk2, the body is certainly up to the task and sport photographers might be able to get away with EF-S lenses - though I cannot think of a 70-200 f/2.8, one of the goto lenses, equivalent off the top of my head. Personally I'm glad I have both bodies in my bag. The 7D + 70-200 combo gives me an awesome close-game setup (112mm-320mm) that I don't think I'd be able to match with a FF setup unless I switched to Sigma.

Obviously my genre based choices arent the same for everyone. Still, I've got a much broader range available to me with the same set of lenses by choosing to utilise both formats. 16mm on the FF at the wide end up to 640mm with the 400mm on the 7D and that's not including the 1.4 and 2.0x teleconverters.

If you need an ultra-wide on the APS-C bodies you're probably going to have to get yourself a EF-S lens and sell it if you switch to FF but all your other ranges are still pretty much covered by EF lenses.
 
Dave123 said:
Then look at at the Canon 10-22, none of the lenses you are considering are really wide angle on crop, they are all effectively just midrange zooms...
Click to expand...
The 10-22 is apparently a very good lense, not to expensive either and if you go FF selling 2hnd Canon gear is so easy if you sell it you'll probably not lose much. If you find a nice one 2hnd even better.
 
Hasn't been mentioned yet… EF 11-24mm F4L USM?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X