# 16-35mm f/2.8 II vs 24mm f/1.4L II



## Reid_design (Apr 16, 2012)

I'm currently thinking of divesting my 50mm f/1.4 for a higher quality lens. The 28-300mm covers a lot of lenses, and is great for travel but i need something with a lower f/ value for low light and nice bokah. 

I do take a lot of portraiture, and the 50mm is great for that. I'm also considering the 85mm f/1.2 L II USM, and the 50mm f/1.2L...

I'm going on a three week trip in china and japan and am thinking of upgrading before then...

Whats your take?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2012)

I got lots of use from my 35L in China - it's a great nighttime walkaround lens. I find 24mm often a bit too wide for people shooting (except groups). The 85L is excellent for portrait sessions but less so for candids - AF is quite slow, IMO. My most recent trip, my 'travel kit' was a gripped 5DII, 28-300L, 35L, and 135L - that was a great and versatile combo, packed well in a Lowepro Flipside 300.


----------



## mr.ranger (Apr 16, 2012)

i wouldn't go for the 50L although yes it does have better weather sealing and quieter auto focus but over all the 50mm 1.4 has better sharpness. have you thought about the 24-104L? 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## keithinmelbourne (Apr 16, 2012)

The 50L is a great all-rounder, but so too is the 35L. If I was in your position and could only buy one lens for travel I would probably go for the 35L. It's wide enough to work in tight areas and provides very nice bokeh. I took one to Vietnam and found it to be very versatile, particularly for street portraits. I would steer clear of the 85L, as it really isn't a street lens (the 85 f1.8, however, is very good for this purpose).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2012)

Street shooting with the 35L in Nanjing and Gunagzhou:




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/20 s, f/5, ISO 3200




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/50 s, f/2, ISO 200




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 2.5 s, f/5.6, ISO 100


----------



## Matthew19 (Apr 17, 2012)

35mm is such a cool focal length. I own the 35L as well as the 50L and 50 1.4. The 50L has a nicer bokeh than the 1.4 and feels better. Its a bit sharper below f2.8 than the 1.4 lens but after that the 1.4 is better. I have a love hate with the 16-35mm II. It has some serious distortion between 16-24mm, mine looks soft in the corners below f/4 as well. But that 16mm can produce some cool landscapes. If you want lowlight though, I'd go 24mm 1.4


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 17, 2012)

Matthew19 said:


> 35mm is such a cool focal length. I own the 35L as well as the 50L and 50 1.4. The 50L has a nicer bokeh than the 1.4 and feels better. Its a bit sharper below f2.8 than the 1.4 lens but after that the 1.4 is better. I have a love hate with the 16-35mm II. It has some serious distortion between 16-24mm, mine looks soft in the corners below f/4 as well. But that 16mm can produce some cool landscapes. If you want lowlight though, I'd go 24mm 1.4



+1. Love the 35L on a crop body and love the 50L on a FF. My 35L does better with closer subjects because it has a shorter MFD.

It seems to me that you are actually asking two questions:
1. Which is a better wide angle option: 16-35L or 24L? I'd suggest the 16-35L to complement your 28-300L better for your trip. The 24L is a great lens, but there are so many options at 24mm (wide angle zoom, mid range zoom, prime, tilt shift, etc) that the focal length is easy to cover.
2. Which is a better portrait lens: 50L or 85L? If your 50 f/1.4 works well for you wide open, keep the 50 f/1.4 and add the 85L. It'll give you more flexibility. If the reason you're considering selling your 50 f/1.4 is because it doesn't perform as well as you'd like wide open, then it'd make sense to replace it with the 50L if it is your preferred portrait focal length.

If you are able to afford only 1 lens at this time, I'd opt for the 16-35L assuming that you're satisfied with the 50 f/1.4 If you're not satisfied with the 50 f/1.4, then I'd get the 50L or 85L first.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 17, 2012)

I have both the 16-35mm f/2.8 II and the 24mm f/1.4L II. I use the 16-35 ten to one over the 24 1.4 It obviously depends on what you are doing. For me the 16-35 is on my camera more than most my other lenses combined! Its a fantastic lens. the 24 is always in my bag, but I defiantly lean to the 16-35


----------



## photophreek (Apr 17, 2012)

Preston:

I looked at your site and I have to say your are a gifted photographer to have such vision and be able to transfer that vision into photographs. 

Well done!! 

You must be busy.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. :-\


----------



## cpsico (Apr 17, 2012)

Is the classic versatility versus sharpest IQ, i love my 16-35II if it helps. It is crazy wide on a full frame and excellent between 20-30


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 17, 2012)

photophreek said:


> Preston:
> 
> I looked at your site and I have to say your are a gifted photographer to have such vision and be able to transfer that vision into photographs.
> 
> ...



Thank you. And yes. VERY busy. We are in Hawaii till the end of May


----------



## JR (Apr 18, 2012)

My vote wo uld be for a 35 as well. I agree with neuro that the 24 is too wide for portrait and i would not use it as a trip lens. I mostly use it for group or family event photo plus video shooting. That said, the 50 mm or 35 are better suited for walkaround prime, or the zoom you mentionned. Good luck.


----------



## Caps18 (Apr 18, 2012)

The 16-35mm is on my camera the most, but it is because it is easy.

I 'might' have gone with the 17 TS-E, 24mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2 and the 85mm f/1.8 if I had it all to do over again. And if I had to have the same budget, I would swap the 24 f/1.4 for the 17mm TS-E with 1.4x. The only problem with the TS-E is the lack of auto focus and high f/4+.

Anyways, the 24mm would be too limiting for my tastes after using the 16-35. I'm sure it is a great lens, but I am too used to being able to zoom out, or zoom in (I do with it was a 16-50 though).


----------



## birdman (Apr 18, 2012)

35L all the way. 

If you need wider 16-35 or 17-40. At 40mm, the 17-40 is pretty decent stopped down.


----------



## Reid_design (Apr 20, 2012)

Its interesting to me that there are *NO* votes for the 24mm.... very interesting..

I think I'm going to go with the 16-35mm though, and hold onto my 50mm f/1.4 for this trip. I also think i will pick up the new flash and perhaps the battery grip as well..


Thanks guys!


----------



## Reid_design (Apr 20, 2012)

An interesting comment made by one of my friends, should I perhaps wait until i'm in Japan to buy some of the gear? Will it be any cheaper over there?


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Apr 22, 2012)

Reid_design said:


> Its interesting to me that there are *NO* votes for the 24mm.... very interesting..
> 
> I think I'm going to go with the 16-35mm though, and hold onto my 50mm f/1.4 for this trip. I also think i will pick up the new flash and perhaps the battery grip as well..
> 
> ...



I am heading to costa rica over the summer and will NOT be bringing my grip. I will bring several batteries and 2 lenses. I am hiling/camping for almost a week so the smaller the better. I ALWAYS have a grip when shooting around town but think it makes the camera to combersome for a trip. Especially if photography is the main purpose of the trip. I would leave the grip at home and grab another lens. 

I am bringing my 50d
16-35mm
70-200mm and some weather proofing (ie. plastic bags)

The grip is your choise but I would leave it at home. More cons than pros in my opinion...


----------



## Reid_design (Apr 22, 2012)

KreutzerPhotography said:


> Reid_design said:
> 
> 
> > Its interesting to me that there are *NO* votes for the 24mm.... very interesting..
> ...



I think you've raised a very interesting point and its definitely going to come into play for me. I've always shot without a grip but i just thought it would be a nice addition since i shoot a lot of portraiture. 

Why do you bring plastic bags for waterproofing? the 16-35mm L and the 70-200mm L are both water resistant no?

Thanks !!
Peter


----------



## helpful (Apr 22, 2012)

Reid_design said:


> Its interesting to me that there are *NO* votes for the 24mm.... very interesting..
> 
> I think I'm going to go with the 16-35mm though, and hold onto my 50mm f/1.4 for this trip. I also think i will pick up the new flash and perhaps the battery grip as well..
> 
> ...



That's interesting to me, too. I honestly did not vote yet in this poll although I read it. And I would have recommended the 16-35mm II for you over the 24mm f/1.4L II.

However, the odd thing for me is that I own both lenses, and I almost always leave the 16-35mm at home in favor of the 24mm f/1.4L II. It's the perfect lens for my needs in dark conditions at events or turning around and getting crowd shots at games. For those needs the 24mm focal length is just right because it gets enough in the frame without being so wide-angle that the subjects are too small. A common practice with the 16-35mm lens is to use it at the widest end for cases such as mine, and I tend to do that, too. (For grab shots there usually isn't time to think and zoom, especially when catching a fleeting expression on the front row of the crowd, so the widest angle gives the best chance for catching it all.) But after a year or so I realized that 24mm was really the ideal focal length for grab shots that I wanted, and I get two extra stops of aperture as well, and a definite increase in sharpness at any equivalent aperture.

That's my two cents. I can't honestly define why I don't use the 16-35mm more in my own photography, and I would still recommend it as more versatile, although somehow for me the 24mm has become my "right-hand man" and go-to wide-angle lens. And so much so that if I were going to China and Japan right now, I would feel much more comfortable taking the 24mm f/1.4L II and leaving behind the 16-35mm II, and I would feel very ill at ease without the 24mm f/1.4L II no matter what other lenses I had in its place.

Does anyone else find the 24mm f/1.4L II so useful and versatile in their everyday photography?


----------



## squarebox (Apr 23, 2012)

Reid_design said:


> An interesting comment made by one of my friends, should I perhaps wait until i'm in Japan to buy some of the gear? Will it be any cheaper over there?



If you are coming from Europe, it might be slightly cheaper here in Japan. If you are coming from the U.S./Canada it will be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper there. Let's put it this way, when I bought my 35L last Dec., I saved about $600 by buying it at B&H and having it shipped over. 

If you are buying new stuff though, the gap isn't as large. The 600ex-rt i picked up for $600 USD, the 5D3 is $3900, and the 24-80mk2 is $2350. 

Thing about Japan is that there is very little consumer protectionism here tied with Oligopolies that prices are stupid high here for Made in Japan goods. It is much much cheaper to buy any Japanese goods over in the states for cheaper. Now, I think the perception of Japan being cheaper than the U.S. was back when the exchange rate was 130-150 yen to the dollar up until 5 years ago.


----------



## KreutzerPhotography (Apr 23, 2012)

Reid_design said:


> KreutzerPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Reid_design said:
> ...



Im goin to Costa Rica in the rainy season with a 50d body. which is only SEMI waterresistant. and I just dont want to chance it... but yes the lenses are bothe water resistant...


----------



## Reid_design (Apr 24, 2012)

I just wanted to say thank you to all who participated in this forum... I decided to go with the majority and get the 16-35mm f/2.8L II .... and what a beauty. Can't wait for this trip. I also bought a gorillapod to take with me. Its going to be an amazing trip and ill for sure post some pics here for you all upon return. 

Also, the potential for the 35mm to be updated as well as the 85 due to recent rumours helped me along with my decision since the 16-35 is such a new lens!

Bon shooting!


----------



## rambarra (Apr 24, 2012)

you made a misshtake. the zeiss 21 was the lens you needed. so sad
r


----------



## Caps18 (Apr 24, 2012)

The Zeiss 21mm is still f/2.8... I would like something f/2 and below if I am going with a prime (besides the 17mm TS-E).

21mm is a good focal length, but there are some places where even 16mm isn't wide enough.


----------

