Your opinion please: Hey UH folks......Danny here on my second post. I stated previously I use a 7D Mark ll. I have the 10-18, 50 and 100-400 and have been researching for a general...

Danny Nash

Hey UH folks......Danny here on my second post. I stated previously I use a 7D Mark ll. I have the 10-18, 50 and 100-400 and have been researching for a general use/walk around lens. I would like your valuable opinions on Canon's 16-35 f/2.8 vs 24-70 f/2.8 recognizing the obvious difference in focal length. I know these are both best suited for a FF which I hope to add one day but believe they would both work well on my cropped censor. You're the experts and I look forward to your responses.

Thanks in advance.

Danny

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 C is a great lens - and - affordable.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I have had the first and second versions of the 16-35 on my full frame camera. The older lens vignettes but the second version doesn't. The 17-40 f4 is sharper than the first version of the 16-35. If you buy the 16-35 I suggest getting the newer version.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

imagemeister wrote:

The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 C is a great lens - and - affordable.

The Sigma is crop only - Many really like the Canon or Sigma 24-105 for a FF if you must.

Photocraig

imagemeister wrote:

The Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 C is a great lens - and - affordable.

I love mine on my crop sensor Canon. BUT the move to Full Frame will require anotehr lens since this is for APS-C only.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I have used both lenses on my 7D II and it really depends on what you are shooting. The 16-35 is great for photographing stuff indoors and the 24-70 is good for people shots in close proximity. My general purpose, walk about, every day lens, that I use of a variety of Canon bodies such as 7D II, 6D, 5DSr, 80D, just to mention a few, is the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM. Yeah, it's big and heavy and it's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it is sharp enough and it is probably the most versatile lens Canon, or anyone else makes. When you can only take one lens, that's the lens to take...

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

dnash wrote:

Hey UH folks......Danny here on my second post. I ... (show quote)

The two above mentioned lenses are excellent. The 24-70mm f2.8 can qualify as a walk around lens. Sharp as a razor.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

I agree with mas24. Unless you are looking for long reach on your walk around the 24-70 f/2.8 would be a good fit since it is equal to 102 mm on the long end so comparable to my 24-105 on my 6D (at least on the long end). For about $700 more you could get the Canon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 which is almost twice as heavy. My own preference would be the 24-70. As a matter of fact that is on my list for the future.
Bud

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Photocraig wrote:

I love mine on my crop sensor Canon. BUT the move to Full Frame will require anotehr lens since this is for APS-C only.

I think I said that above ....

tsilva Loc: Arizona

since you don't state what you shoot there is no way for anyone to make an intelligible answer

Danny Nash

tsilva wrote:

since you don't state what you shoot there is no way for anyone to make an intelligible answer

I apologize. I went with the presupposition that a walk around lens wasndor any and everything from people to landscapes to street photography, etc but none specifically. Are you perhaps asking what shoot as my primary photography? Did so, wildlife, landscapes, nature generally. But I do other things as well but those are primary.

jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

dnash wrote:

I apologize. I went with the presupposition that a walk around lens wasndor any and everything from people to landscapes to street photography, etc but none specifically. Are you perhaps asking what shoot as my primary photography? Did so, wildlife, landscapes, nature generally. But I do other things as well but those are primary.

You supposed right, some people just get ahead of what is written.

Danny Nash

This is the grammatically corrected question I posed earlier after rereading my typos.

I apologize. I went with the presupposition that a walk around lens was for any and everything from people to landscapes to street photography, etc but none specifically. Are you perhaps asking what I shoot as my primary photography? If so, wildlife, landscapes, nature generally. But I do other things as well but those are primary.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

dnash wrote:

This is the grammatically corrected question I posed earlier after rereading my typos.

I apologize. I went with the presupposition that a walk around lens was for any and everything from people to landscapes to street photography, etc but none specifically. Are you perhaps asking what I shoot as my primary photography? If so, wildlife, landscapes, nature generally. But I do other things as well but those are primary.

I happen to agree with you. To me a walk around lens is what I have on my camera when I don't have a specific photo goal in mind.
Bud

Danny Nash

Thanks Bud.