Canon 16-35 mm L or 24 105 mm L lens?

alpinecowboy84

alpinecowboy84

Active member
man thinking about dropping some serious cash and upping my equipment to provide better image quality. we're talking an investment of 12 to 14 hundred bones.

problem is i dont know which lens to get. the two that i'm considering are totally totally different. one is a wide angle (16 - 35) which is sick for journalistic/travel/low light interior type photographs - takes nice portraits too. i've used this lens and i love it.

the other is a zoom that occupies a nice fat block of the focal range. problem is its only rated to f4. i love lowlight photography, espeically for use in portraiture/model shit.

any experience with these lenses, thoughts, opinions would be cool. speak your mind.
 
remeber you've got feet, so if you need to get closer, most of the time you can help your self
 
I prefer primes, so I can offer you no help, but I just want this on MyThreads to see what other people say...sorry to waste your time reading this.

But I'd say it depends on what lenses you already own. If you don't have a super wide lens, I'd go with the 16-35.
 
i do like primes. but a zoom for wides is pretty useful, especially since there is no 16 lenght and especially since the 24mm seems to have gotten mediocre reviews.

the 24 70 is a 2.8 but i dunno, i feel like thats a pretty short focal length for that much cash. i've also read that the optical quality of the 105 is just as good, sometimes better. 4f is kind of high though.

as for my camera its a canon elan 7n
 
what kind of camera do you have? if it's a 350D, 20D, or Mark II N, remember that there's a magnification factor (350D and 20D are 1.6x, Mk II is 1.3x), so your 28mm is actually a 45mm or 36mm.

as for clarity, if you want the BEST imaging, go with primes. the L telephotos are still sick though (i have the 70-200mm f/4.0 and it's so nice).

to your concerns about one lens being f/4.0 as opposed to f/2.8 - you might actually be better off going with the 4.0 as there may be less vignetting and sharper overall imaging, even at slower f-stops. check out http://www.photozone.de and their review section - they're VERY in depth and their testing lets you look at hard data from one lens to the next.

good luck on your search.
 
i did some quick checking and found out that as far as construction goes, these lenses are really close

24-105mm

-three aspherical elements and one S-UD (ultra-low dispersion) element

-image stabilizer (but only has the fastest f-stop of 4.0)

16-35mm

-one aspherical and two UD elements.

-no IS, fastest f-stop of 2.8

24-105 (at 24mm)

ef24-105mtf_wide.gif


16-35 (at 16mm)

ef_16-35_28mtf1.gif


however, looking at the MTF charts on canon's site, in the lab, the 24-105 had much better results when you get closer to the center whereas the 15-35 sees a distinct dropoff at 10 and 15 from the center (on both the 10 LP/mm and 30 LP/mm, respectively). the 24-105 also has better contrast and sharpness both wide open (the blue lines) and stepped down to f/8.0 (black lines).

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml

there's a quick guide to reading MTF charts

so unless you're REALLY jonesing for a wide angle, I'd go with the 24-105.
 
You can't really compare those charts like that because they are at different focal lengths. Obviously, a wide angle will lose some sharpness around the corners, it's generally known that super wide lenses aren't as sharp as regular wide angles, esp. outside of the center. 15 is pretty wide, and that is a damn good chart for a 15mm lens. The difference will probably be unnoticable even if you do compare the two at their widest settings by shooting the same image with them both, unless you blow up the image to a poster. Especially when using the lenses on a APS-C size sensor (like on most lower end DSLRs), where the far edges will not come into play. Just something to think about.

Also, I read somewhere that Canon's MTF charts are based on calculated values, and don't represent actual tested values. I don't know why they do that, it's kind of strange.
 
i mean i know that IS is going to help a lot. but i think 4 is just too limited for me. for dropping that much money i think i'd find myself frusterated quite often. might have to go with 24 - 70 over the 24 - 105.

i just spent some time on fred miranda reading reviews of the 85mm 1.2 and it seems that people are extremely happy with that one. i'll probably rent one to see how it feels.
 
yeah, i forgot to mention that telephotos are inherently sharper and more contrasty than wide angles, and the numbers are going to reflect this - so it you're going for REALLY good imaging, a telephoto is your best bet.

and i have no clue as to how canon tests, which is why i pointed to http://www.photozone.de as they have independent lab testing of a wide range of lenses if you don't want to take the manufacturers word (which i rarely do).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top