Return 16-35mm 2.8/L for 24-70mm 2.8L?

A

abeas

Well-known member
I'm thinking returning the 16-35 for the 24-70 to get the extra zoom. I would also get the Tokina 11-16mm to cover the wide angle loss. The 16-35 is the newer II model. These would be going on a 1.6x Canon crop sensor. 90 percent of usage is video. I will be on tripod or slider most of the time, so I don't feel IS is a must.
Any thoughts?
 
abeas said:
I'm thinking returning the 16-35 for the 24-70 to get the extra zoom. I would also get the Tokina 11-16mm to cover the wide angle loss. The 16-35 is the newer II model. These would be going on a 1.6x Canon crop sensor. 90 percent of usage is video. I will be on tripod or slider most of the time, so I don't feel IS is a must.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'd hang on to the 16-35 2.8 II and add another 2.8 zoom lens to cover the longer range. The 16-35 II will cover a FF body and is weather proof. That lens is a keeper. I ran a test of the 24-70 L against my Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC and the only difference in the IQ was some CA I spotted in the Canon 24-70 so although a great lens, it may not be as perfect as the reviews.

Below is a first hand side by side. I plan to to do many more in the future to see for myself the reality.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?272987-Tamron-17-50-VS-Canon-24-70-L
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top