Which one would you choose 16-35 f2.8L II, 24-70 f2.8 or a 24mm f1.4L II

[paolotm]

Assuming you have the budget for these L lenses which one would you choose and why?
16-35 f2.8L II
24-70 f2.8L
24mm f1.4L II

Things to consider:
-1 lens for multiple purposes, walk around (wishful thinking, pero hypothetical lang naman), lens fixed to your cam for good
-focusing distance
-full frame body

Appreciate your inputs.

PS: just in case there is already a similar thread i'd appreciate if you could paste the link, i already did several searches, couldn't find any discussion that includes the 24mm f1.4L II, other than being on a dream lens list or wish list.

• Tweet

[jakepalvarez]

Sir I'm not a Canon user, but I got interested in your post. I'd say 24-70 2.8 has better range than the 16-35 on full frame body. I think of all the 3 lenses you specified this is most suitable for multiple purposes.

• Tweet

[akosizer]

Since i really like shooting wide and sometimes shooting near my subject, my vote goes to 16-35. This lens is a perfect replacement for my 10-22 should I go FF. *dreaming*

• Tweet

[ctlim]

I just love the 16-35 and the 17-40 on a FF body.

but for your needs I would say go for the 24-70.... the UWA lenses won't give you enough distance for walk around.

if you need a wider shot just shoot and stitch. as for the 24mm, I just don't see it contributing to what you need for the moment.

• Tweet

[kentaps]

i'd go for the 24-70 on a full frame body...perfect range for a walk-around lens IMO and the constant 2.8 aperture is a bonus!

• Tweet

[jekko_bantayan]

Assuming you have the budget for these L lenses which one would you choose and why?

24-70....it is like/similar to the 17-55 on a crop body. versatile range.

just my 2 cents!

• Tweet

[HumpreyCogay]

meron akong isang natutunan sa photography

if you don't know what you want, use what you have, then later think about what you need.......

some are focused on having that Great L lens pero pag nandun na yung L lens ay mas kailangan ko pala yun etc.....

• Tweet

[hs1v]

i'd go for the 24-70 on a full frame body...perfect range for a walk-around lens IMO and the constant 2.8 aperture is a bonus!

+1

• Tweet

[lehboy]

24-70 is better/more flexible from a general standpoint.

but I personally like the 16-35 II better.

• Tweet

[Tonj21]

Dont have any of those lens but after all the researching and contemplating, with your three choices ill go with 24-70 f2.8 for general/ all purpose lens.

I think this would help.. one of the reviews i found in the net. HTH.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-General-Purpose-Lens.aspx

• Tweet

[kieron]

none of the above, I like a 35 1.4 on my FF body. nothing beats 1.4 in low light.

fyi. I ordered a 24 1.4 II two months ago, until now it didn't arrive yet.

• Tweet

[comarx17]

I would go fro the 24-70 for its versatility especially on a full frame.

• Tweet

[photobong]

No experience with 24 f1.4II. I only have the other two.

Of all my lenses the 16-35 is my personal favorite. I seldom use 24-70. The latter is not wide enough....and also not telephoto enough for me.

If I have to choose only one, I'll get the 24-70 since it's has a more flexible FL range. But I will save up to get the 16-35.

Cheers!

• Tweet

[wwonka]

i guess these options depends on the shooting style of each person

i dont have the 24mm f/1.4L II....

for me the 24-70L is a great one lens option. 24 mm is wide enough for me and 70 mm is telephoto enough for me to get the shoulder up portrait....

• Tweet

[voodoo]

though the 24 1.4L II is tempting (to add to my primes), i would say the 24-70 2.8L.

it's on my 5D most of the time. most of the time. my 17-40L sits on the drybox until i go and shoot landscapes (i bring a 20mm 2.8 primes with me, smaller profile). the focusing distance of the 24-70 2.8L is great! you can get up close and personal, not macro or zuiko close but close. it's focal range is very flexible and it's perfect optically for your full frame.

• Tweet

[joaquin888]

24-70 seems to be a logical choice.. my personal preference for my nikon is  16-85vr tried the tammy 17-50 2.8 medj bitin ako when i have to zoom eh.

in the end it will be about your shooting style. 

• Tweet

[genoboy]

ok din naman yung 17-40mm eh, hehe..ang kaso medyo bitin nga lang lalo na kapag gagamitin mo as walk aroung lens eh di ba..hehe..ako you need the 24-70mm if you dont have any idea what to buy..as time goes buy depending on your subject you will be needing those lenses..a

• Tweet

[IMm29]

I'd go for the 24-70 f2.8L. I'm not much into UWA lenses, so the 24-70 range, especially on a FF body, is most useful for me.

• Tweet

[paolotm]

Thank you for your inputs...
modifying 1 parameter, instead for a FF body a cropped body will be used.

In this case it would seem that the 16-35 is the one choose, since it is the widest among the 3. But, compared to a EF-S 17-55 f2.8IS is the L optics better? Some say that the 17-55 optics is L like. I used to own one myself, but for some reason i found it to be soft compared to a 24-70.

I hope cropped body owners who have a 16-35 f2.8 II could share their thoughts.

Thank you very much again!

• Tweet

[jabba]

I have the 17-40L 16-35L II and 24-70L on a 10d, 40d, 5d and 5d2. An ultrawide like the 16-35L II works on a 1.6x crop body as a walk around.

As for the 24L II if you have the money for it you may as well buy it. I'm looking forward to buying the 24L II and the TSE 17L next.

• Tweet