16-35 or 24-105

[unixcat]

Greetings,

I am currently using a cropped body, and I am about to upgrade to FF. My lens right now is a 18-55, and I shoot a lot of wide shots. Mostly in the 18-38mm range. I wanted to ask the more experienced members here if they think I would miss the extended range of the later lens. My subjects are young children, but I want to get into more landscape, and architectural shots (I live in DC.) Ideally, I would like to get both, but I guess I was really wanting to know is if 24mm would be wide enough for me if I shoot a lot of 18mm on a cropped sensor. Also, I have read here on the forums where the 24-105's ideal aperture is around F11. This confuses me some as to how well this lens does in low light (which is why I consider the 16-35 a stronger possible). I mean if I have to stop this L lens down to F11 for the best IQ, then does that seems that I start adding noise in low light situations. Maybe I am missing something, but why would Canon market premium "L" glass as F4 when it's really only ideal at F11. I'm considering a 5D (waiting on rebate news.)

TIA for the opinions!

 

[Jamie H.]

24mm on a FF is substantially wider than 18mm on your 1.6x crop.

The 24-105 is acceptably sharp wide open, and very sharp one stop down. F11 is really only necessary for sufficient depth of field for landscapes, not for optimal sharpness.

I would buy the 24-105 first, then if you need wider, look into getting something wider. I think you will find that the 16-35 range is too wide on a full frame for most types of general purpose shooting. The 24-105 would be a LOT more useful.

Greetings,

I am currently using a cropped body, and I am about to upgrade to FF.
My lens right now is a 18-55, and I shoot a lot of wide shots.
Mostly in the 18-38mm range. I wanted to ask the more experienced
members here if they think I would miss the extended range of the
later lens. My subjects are young children, but I want to get into
more landscape, and architectural shots (I live in DC.) Ideally, I
would like to get both, but I guess I was really wanting to know is
if 24mm would be wide enough for me if I shoot a lot of 18mm on a
cropped sensor. Also, I have read here on the forums where the
24-105's ideal aperture is around F11. This confuses me some as to
how well this lens does in low light (which is why I consider the
16-35 a stronger possible). I mean if I have to stop this L lens
down to F11 for the best IQ, then does that seems that I start adding
noise in low light situations. Maybe I am missing something, but why
would Canon market premium "L" glass as F4 when it's really only
ideal at F11. I'm considering a 5D (waiting on rebate news.)

TIA for the opinions!

--



http://archive.jmhphoto.net

 

[unixcat]

Awesome! Thank you for your very knowledgeable and quick reply. That was exactly what I was looking for.

 

[SNGX1327]

yeah, if you used that 16-35mm on a full frame camera you would have something similar to a 10-20mm lens on your crop camera, which falls into the category of "ultrawide". it's nowhere near as useful as the 24-105 which can be used as an all-purpose lens (with both a wide angle and a telephoto angle)