EF 16-35L as only lens?

O.K., now my ignorance is showing, I just received the 28-70 lens the other day for my D30 as my only lens for a while.

My question, would the 16-35 lens be a better single lens than the 28-70? How close up can you get compared to the 28-70? And even though the 16-35 will take a wider shot couldn't I just crop the photo?

I appreciate your input and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

regards,
blang

blang said:

My question, would the 16-35 lens be a better single lens than the
28-70? How close up can you get compared to the 28-70? And even
though the 16-35 will take a wider shot couldn't I just crop the
photo?

Click to expand...

Would it be a better lens? What, and how, do you shoot?

Could you use the 16-35 and crop? Sure. You'll have to be a little more careful about focusing and metering, and know what you'll want to crop to. You'll also be throwing away plenty of valuable pixels, so you might wind up with a 1.3 megapixel D30. Also, you'll have a harder time throwing a background out of focus to isolate your main subject. Those are some of the reasons they make different lenses.

On the other hand, a new 16-35 will cost you $1,500, and it's MUCH too early to go looking for a used one...

Forrest:

Thanks for your response, I mostly take product shots in an indoor studio of leathergoods (bags, wallets, luggage etc.) in addition to general amateur photography.

I guess I'm just tryng to be cheap, or get the most for my money with one lens at this time.

Of course you're right, Canon makes different lenses for a reason I just thought that maybe some lenses overlap with additional abilities.

regards,
blang

blang said:

Thanks for your response, I mostly take product shots in an indoor
studio of leathergoods (bags, wallets, luggage etc.) in addition to
general amateur photography.

Click to expand...

Well, for your professional purpose, I think a lot of different lenses will do, but the 16 would be a good choice ( because of it's close focus ) and so would a macro lens, if you need close-ups of the wallets, or the hinges on the luggage. As for general amateur photography, you're talking a lot wider than most photography is, and even on a D30 this might be too short for portraits ... but you can make due. I told you most of the cons to using this lens as your only one ... if working around them is worth savign $1,500 to you, go for it. If not, try it, and there'll still be 16-35s later.

blang said:

Of course you're right, Canon makes different lenses for a reason I
just thought that maybe some lenses overlap with additional
abilities.

Click to expand...

Well, they're all the same in that they all focus light onto a CCD, and have an aperture and all that ... but they're all different in terms of what image they can focus, and how well. It can be kind of daunting, really ... but keep in mind that they all do the same thing, basically.

blang

Get the 50mm f/1.4 lens. That would be perfect for you. It shoots good in very low light..and is a great lens...cheap to.. 300+ bucks. Do it blang.

LM

nitwit3 said:

blang

Get the 50mm f/1.4 lens. That would be perfect for you. It shoots
good in very low light..and is a great lens...cheap to.. 300+
bucks. Do it blang.

Click to expand...

Thanks nitwit (feel funny writing that!), I'll check it out.

There are A LOT of folks that would do just fine having the 16-35L and the 28-70L as their ONLY lenses unless they of course would need more telephoto for distance shots. Otherwise the 16-35L and 28-70L would cover the "Lions Share" of photography for most. There is no ONE lens does all, but it sure is nice to have them all eh? LOL