Decision Canon 16-35 L or 24-70mm L

[kptasteve]

I am trying to make decision between between the purchace of either Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens or Canon EF 16-35MM F/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens. I do a lot of photography for our catering business, and presently use a Canon 70-200 USM L IS for about 50% of the shots and an EF 24-105 for the other shots. It does fair job but not as good as the EF 28-105 L series. (Seems about a 4 stop difference)

However, when trying to get shots inside the tent and get the whole of the tent I need a wide angle. I also do about one or two wedding sessions per year and need to get the "big picture" in low light.

I am willing to save for the more expensive one, but if the 24-70 L will do the job then I will go ahead and use the $400 for some other piece of equipment.

Would like some practical advice.

[gturner]

What camera body do you have?

[inkista]

3rd option: if you don't need the f/2.8, you could go for a 17-40 f/4L. Lots less expensive than the 16-35/2.8, and roughly the same performance at f/4. If you're lighting and using a tripod for interior shots, then maybe the 16-35 II is overkill. (I'm assuming you're shooting full-frame, since you're saying a 24mm would be wide enough).

You could also go back to a used Mark I or the 17-35/2.8L, but the performance is noticeably not as good.

[ceremus]

Assuming you're on a crop body and not a full frame (still with the 50D looks like?) then yes, a zoom starting at 24mm will be somewhat limiting for wide-angle views. In this respect, the 24-70L will not have any advantage over the 24-105L, their widest angle is the same, 24mm. That's a perfectly good wide angle perspective on a full frame, but not so much on a crop camera. The 24-70L has a constant max aperture of f/2.8, so it does have an advantage over the 24-105L f/4 in terms of low light performance and a very shallow DoF.

If all you need is a wider angle lens there are a few choices, including the Canon EF-S 10-22mm and a few other 3rd party wideangle zooms meant specifically for crop bodies, all of which I won't go into here. If you need both a very wide angle and low light capability you can definitely consider the 16-35 f/2.8 L. There is also a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 that may be worth looking over.

[kptasteve]

Sorry, did not mention I was using a crop body, 50D and also use a 7D time to time. I do not have time to light the tent as most times I am not the main photographer, because I am doing work for the caterer, and not for the bride per se, although sometimes I will provide to the bride some of the photos, that do not compete with the paid photographer;s work.

Steve

[inkista]

Ah. Crop and available light (sorry, I didn't read your original post carefully enough) is a different matter.

I'd say go for an ultrawide: Tokina 11-16/2.8 is the only f/2.8 one in the bunch, and they're all pretty much on a par for performance, or a 17-something lens, either the EF-S 17-55/2.8 if you've got the bucks, or a Tamon 17-50/2.8 if you don't.

The 16-35/2.8L II is meant to be an ultrawide on a full-frame, not so much a fast walkaround on a crop. Unless you plan on getting a 5D in the future relatively soon, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM is likely to make you happier with a larger zoom range and stabilization. The image quality has the reputation of being on a par with the Ls. It won't be as heavy-duty in build, and it will still be expensive, but it's a better fit for a crop body and particularly for the type of shooting you're describing.

I know you want an L lens, but in this specific case (going [ultra]wide on a crop) is where you might as well take advantage of the crop sensor format, and grab a lens that's designed for crop. You're liable to get better image quality at a much lower cost, simply because lens designs don't have to perform well all the way out to the corners for full frame.