Canon 16-35 f4l is or 70-200 f4l is

[JDShadowKing]

The 2 lenses im interested in getting is the 16-35 f4L IS and the 70-200 f4L IS. Due to cost reasons i can only get one of it before i upgrade to ff. Im using crop and own a sigma 35 art will be upgrading to ff in 2 years or so. I shoot portraits and archtecture.
Reasons for 16-35 as its a wide angle it would be great for archtecture but im on crop so im worried this wont be that wide
Reasons for 70-200 as its a tele focal length and would give tighter portraits shots and i also cover events sometimes so the 70-200 would go v nicely with my 35
So should i get the 16-35 first then 70-200 when i upgrade to ff or vice versa?
Cheers Joel

 

[nitewalk]

Wow tbh this is a tough one. Perhaps you can try looking through your works to see what you mostly shoot with. Is it the uwa or the tele? There are always reasons to get either but without looking at what you shoot it is hard to advise.

Also, two years sound pretty long away to me. You can consider getting the 10-18 STM and 70-200. To me, i feel the 10-18 STM isnt too shabby for that price and 70-200 is a worthy investment. Using 16-35 on a crop makes it a general zoom so you don't really get uwa perspectives. When you really upgrade to FF in two years time your needs may have evolved anyway.

 

[JDShadowKing]

Wow tbh this is a tough one. Perhaps you can try looking through your works to see what you mostly shoot with. Is it the uwa or the tele? There are always reasons to get either but without looking at what you shoot it is hard to advise.

Also, two years sound pretty long away to me. You can consider getting the 10-18 STM and 70-200. To me, i feel the 10-18 STM isnt too shabby for that price and 70-200 is a worthy investment. Using 16-35 on a crop makes it a general zoom so you don't really get uwa perspectives. When you really upgrade to FF in two years time your needs may have evolved anyway.

all my work is done with the 35 art only so i dont have a rough gauge on what focal length i use. But i think im leaning towards the 70-200 and 10-18 option as from what u said the 16-35 would give a general purpose range which i alr kinda have covered with the 35*1.6=56

 

[SkyStrike]

all my work is done with the 35 art only so i dont have a rough gauge on what focal length i use. But i think im leaning towards the 70-200 and 10-18 option as from what u said the 16-35 would give a general purpose range which i alr kinda have covered with the 35*1.6=56

Renting is another cheap option to know what focal length you prefer... And the 10-18 is an inexpensive option to try uwa without breaking the bank while on crop body.

And for event portraiture, unless it's a well lit environment, you might struggle with f4. Which I'll recommend the f2.8 version if you can afford it. (If it's not mission critical, you might want to consider other brands like Sigma or Tamron 70-200)
*mission critical as in die die must focus and sharp sharp and get that shot. AFAIK, Sigma and Tamron versions does not focus as fast and does hunts abit more than the canon version. But if hobbyists and can afford to miss that shot. Might want to consider this route instead... the S and T brand is a lot more affordable, still renting them might be a good option to try before buy*

Lastly... 2 years is a long way to go. You might have changed systems already. Also some people have the misconception that FF is the *end* goal of DSLR shooters...which it is not. It does have certain benefits over crop systems. But it doesn't mean it's the best.


** I got my 10-22 (10-18 wasn't available) for my crop body back then, replaced my 55-250 with 70-200 f2.8 before I went for ff. Which eventually I sold off the 10-22 to fund my currently still using 17-40.

 

[Kermitfm]

These 2 lenses are very different so it is a difficult choice. In my opinion, they complement one another. If it is budget constraint, then the decision will be which of the 2 lens would meet your current need the most. When I was building my system, I first got the 70-300 mm L. This is a good lens and I had some great shots with it. After more than 2 years, I added the 16-35 f/4L. I found now that this is my go-to lens often switching out my 24-105mm for this lens. The quality is great and I often shoot at 16 mm (FF). Now, I move around with these 2 lenses (16-35 & 70-300) and it meets 90% of my need.

So my advice - buy the lens you would use most of the time and save up for the other one.

 

[dennisc]

Get the 16-35 bcos it's great for landscape. You won't miss too much with the 70-200 bcos it's not far enough for most zoo pics, and the 35mm should make do for photos for the moment already. Yes bokeh but what's fun in really blurred background as compared to vibrant, colorful landscapes? But 16-35 have bad distortion on my FF's. Speaking from experience bcos I've owned all mentioned (except your 35mm mine is 35mm f1.4L) and that's what I found.