# 35mm f/1.4L USM OR 16-35mm f/4L IS USM OR 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM



## killerBEEcamaro (Mar 9, 2015)

Sorry for the long title. I need your guys suggestions and opinions..

What would be the best lens for me? 

I need a lens for skyline, landscape and indoor shooting. i'm working with a 60D and a 5D3 (i'm looking to get a 3rd body, maybe a 6D or a 5D2). I have seen what all these lenses can do and they are all phenomenal. The 35mm has stood out for me from what i've seen on Flickr. BUT i would love to hear what you all have to say that would convince me otherwise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 9, 2015)

35/1.4 only for indoor shots with moving elements where you can tolerate thin DoF. For everything else, the 16-35/4L IS is the best option.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 35/1.4 only for indoor shots with moving elements where you can tolerate thin DoF. For everything else, the 16-35/4L IS is the best option.



+1. 16-35 f/4 IS wins for landscape and general use, but I like using the 35L for indoor available light stuff. Given that you have FF and crop bodies, the 35L will serve you well indoors. And if you're able to afford the 16-35 f/2.8 II new, then you might consider the 16-35 f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS combo.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 9, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 35/1.4 only for indoor shots with moving elements where you can tolerate thin DoF. For everything else, the 16-35/4L IS is the best option.
> ...


+1 - good advice from both.


----------



## killerBEEcamaro (Mar 10, 2015)

Thank you neuroanatomist & Random Orbits. I'm going to look in to the 16-35 f/2.8 II instead of the f/4 and then save up and get the 35mm. I think shooting outside if a more of a priority for me over the indoors.
Do any of you own any of these lens?


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 10, 2015)

killerBEEcamaro said:


> Thank you neuroanatomist & Random Orbits. I'm going to look in to the 16-35 f/2.8 II instead of the f/4 and then save up and get the 35mm. I think shooting outside if a more of a priority for me over the indoors.
> Do any of you own any of these lens?



I would strongly suggest looking into the 16-35 f/4 IS rather than the 16-35 f/2.8 II. The f/4 IS has much sharper edges/corners, which is what you'd want for landscapes. I used to own the 16-35 f/2.8 II (sold it), and I own the 16-35 f/4 IS, 35L and 35 f/2 IS.

Take a look at the IQ comparisons between the 16-35s at various apertures and focal length.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2015)

killerBEEcamaro said:


> Thank you neuroanatomist & Random Orbits. I'm going to look in to the 16-35 f/2.8 II instead of the f/4 and then save up and get the 35mm. I think shooting outside if a more of a priority for me over the indoors.
> Do any of you own any of these lens?



I have the 35/1.4L, had and sold the 16-35/2.8L II and was planning to replace it with the 16-35/4L IS, but opted for the TS-E 17/4L as most of my ultrawide shooting is architecture/landscapes. 

If shooting outside is your priority, I'd get the 16-35/4 IS over the 16-35/2.8 II in a heartbeat.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2015)

The 16-35 f4 IS is a much better lens than the f2.8 MkII, much better.

Best advice, get the f4 IS first and save a little and get the f2 IS prime second.


----------



## chas1113 (Mar 10, 2015)

killerBEEcamaro said:


> Thank you neuroanatomist & Random Orbits. I'm going to look in to the 16-35 f/2.8 II instead of the f/4 and then save up and get the 35mm. I think shooting outside if a more of a priority for me over the indoors.
> Do any of you own any of these lens?



I have the 16-35 f/4 IS AND the 35 f/2 IS. Both are sharper wide open in the corners and off center than the 16-35 f/2.8 II. Why would you prefer the 2.8 version if your priority is outdoors?


----------



## Ruined (Mar 11, 2015)

killerBEEcamaro said:


> Thank you neuroanatomist & Random Orbits. I'm going to look in to the 16-35 f/2.8 II instead of the f/4 and then save up and get the 35mm. I think shooting outside if a more of a priority for me over the indoors.
> Do any of you own any of these lens?



I agree with some previous posters
*16-35mm f/4L IS USM + 35mm f/2 IS USM*

16-35mm f/2.8L II is at its best for indoor events, shooting people. The 16-35 f/4L IS is significantly better for outdoors with its sharper corners and easier use of slow shutter speeds. But the 35 f/2 IS is much better than the 16-35mm f/2.8L II indoors as it is sharper, better bokeh and a stop faster; plus the 35 f/2 IS arguably has superior bokeh than the 35L too since the 35 IS has curved aperture blades while the 35L has straight blades.

So 16-35 f/4L IS + 35mm f/2 IS = best of both worlds for you.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 11, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> killerBEEcamaro said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you neuroanatomist & Random Orbits. I'm going to look in to the 16-35 f/2.8 II instead of the f/4 and then save up and get the 35mm. I think shooting outside if a more of a priority for me over the indoors.
> ...


I would also join neuroanatomist & Random Orbits opinion and suggest looking into the 16-35 f/4 IS rather than the 16-35 f/2.8 II. As they indicated the f/4 IS has much sharper edges/corners so I also sold the 16-35 f/2.8 II and I bought the 16-35 f/4 IS and 35 f/2 IS.


----------



## bitm2007 (Mar 11, 2015)

killerBEEcamaro said:


> Thank you neuroanatomist & Random Orbits. I'm going to look in to the 16-35 f/2.8 II instead of the f/4 and then save up and get the 35mm. I think shooting outside if a more of a priority for me over the indoors.
> Do any of you own any of these lens?



I'm guessing that your planning to use the 16-35mm f2.8, as a jack of all trades prior to purchasing the 35mm. The reality is that it's master of none. The 16-35mm f4 is much sharper and the 35mm is faster.

I would purchase the 16-35mm f4 and a budget friendly prime (35mm f2 II, 40mm 2.8 STF, 50mm f1.8 II etc), then upgrade the latter when funds permit. Second hand lenses make good money on ebay etc.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 11, 2015)

The 16-35 f2.8 vs f4 debate has obviously been addressed well, but regarding the price of the 35 prime. New it's $550ish? If you really want speed and top performance in your prime, Sigma's 35mm ART is about $300 more right now. Plus, it's even one stop faster than the Canon prime. It's one of the sharpest lenses you'll ever use too. Love the way looks even wide open.


----------



## davidcarlyon (Mar 12, 2015)

I have the 16-35mm f/4 and love it.

For landscapes, you'll usually be using smaller apertures anyway, so for those shots, the wider apertures would be wasted, and the f/4 will give you IS as well. So while the f/2.8 will allow you to shoot wider, the f/4 will let you shoot handheld with smaller apertures and/or lower ISO.

I don't have the Sigma 35mm ART, but I have the 50mm ART, and it's my favorite lens. I think the 16-35mm f/4 and either the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART or Canon 35mm f/2 IS (which I also don't have, but hear good things about) would be a good combo. Use the primes when you need to sacrifice the zoom for a wider aperture.


----------



## killerBEEcamaro (Mar 13, 2015)

Thank you all for your input and recommendations. i will be searching for the 16-35mm f/4L for now and then later i will settle for the 35mm for my indoor shooting! this has been helpful and you all have made my decision easier than before. ;D
-


chas1113 said:


> killerBEEcamaro said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you neuroanatomist & Random Orbits. I'm going to look in to the 16-35 f/2.8 II instead of the f/4 and then save up and get the 35mm. I think shooting outside if a more of a priority for me over the indoors.
> ...



i re-read what i said lol I meant to paste the f/4 info instead. excuse me, i have been sick for the past 8 days and i probably wasn't paying too much attention to my typing as i type like a zombie at times.


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

I do not have experience of the 16-35mm zooms. The EF 35mm f/1.4 is very good if you want to take pictures of crazy people doing silly things in low light. My skills do not allow for zooming back and forth when there is a lot of movement going on. A prime simpifies things. I really like the 35mm *L*. Sorry, the sample pictures just do not want to show up.


----------



## killerBEEcamaro (Nov 18, 2015)

Ruined said:


> killerBEEcamaro said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you neuroanatomist & Random Orbits. I'm going to look in to the 16-35 f/2.8 II instead of the f/4 and then save up and get the 35mm. I think shooting outside if a more of a priority for me over the indoors.
> ...



So i finally purchased the 16-35mm f/4 two weeks ago. Yes, it took a while, but diapers and bills come first. 
I looked into the IQ comparison and instead purchasing the 35mm f1.4 i am now looking into buying the 35mm f/2. The image on the f/2 looks crispier and it's on point over the f1.4. 

I appreciate all the help. I love to shoot landscape and portraits, so i want to make sure i have the right stuff to do so. 
-Best.


----------

