# New Lens



## POC Troutman (Jul 13, 2009)

I have a Canon 7D and i'm trying to decide between the 16-35mm F2.8L or the 24-70mm F2.8L lens. The 24-70mm is another $800 and i already have a 70-200mm F2.8L lens, so i'm leaning towards the 16-35 as a good general use lens.

Expecting a baby at the end of summer and want to take some closeups and portraits, that will be the intended use of either lens.

Appreciate the input.


----------



## POC Troutman (Jul 13, 2009)

or a 50mm F1.2... i'll throw that in there as well.


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

*My 2 cents*

By walkaround (to me) you're almost defining the need for a variety of focal lengths. You wideangle option remains wide at all ranges and your 50mm has no diversity at all.

You included portrait in you mix as well. That completely rules out the wideangle zoom. Fast lenses like the 1.2 are great for low light, but at 1.2 I find the dof is so small the results often are not what I'm looking for. In addition, many photographers prefer focal lengths longer than 50mm because they help flatter the subject.

To be concise your 24-70 handles wide normal and telephoto, is still a good low light option and could for many folks be the only lens they ever needed.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

Unless your shooting bands from the pit in front of a wide stage, or maybe cars in close quarters, the 24-70 will be a lot more versatile. Plus it's sharper in the corners of the frame than the 16-35.


----------



## POC Troutman (Jul 13, 2009)

Very good information and perspective, I really appreciate it. I am going to think about it some
More, but I think in will end up with the 24-70


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Just another option, 24-105 IS. Thats what I use as a general walkaround lens. Can be had for 600-800.
I admit I had to go thru a few to find one I was satisfied with.


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

Heres a really good deal. UB Date code

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1365292


----------



## cajunautoxer (Aug 10, 2011)

I bought the 7d when I found out my wife was pregnant. I own the 24-70 2.8, and 30 1.4 the prime lens stays on my body the most. I also have the 24-105. I sold the 24-70 bc lack of use

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## POC Troutman (Jul 13, 2009)

stargazer said:


> Just another option, 24-105 IS. Thats what I use as a general walkaround lens. Can be had for 600-800.
> I admit I had to go thru a few to find one I was satisfied with.


i was checking that one out but wanted the speed of the 2.8 vs. the 4.

i wanted to add to this that you do take some amazing photos though!


----------



## stargazer (May 24, 2004)

POC Troutman said:


> i was checking that one out but wanted the speed of the 2.8 vs. the 4.
> 
> i wanted to add to this that you do take some amazing photos though!


Thank you for the kind comment. Just wish I had time to do more.

Yep 2.8 is good to have.


----------

