# Swap 16-35 f2.8 II for 24 f1.4 II on 5D3



## IIIHobbs (Jun 27, 2012)

I am considering Swapping my 16-35 f2.8 II for a 24 f1.4 II.

When I had my 40D, the 16-35 was on my camera most of the time. The 24-55 effective focal length suited many situations very well. Since getting the 5D3, I have rarely used it and when I have, it has only occasionally been used wider than 24mm.

The lenses I use most with the 5D3 is my 135 f2 and my 50 f1.2; my 300 f4 has been wonderful for the kids lacrosse.

So, as I am looking to add another prime to my kit, i am curious to hear from those who have used both the 16-35 f2.8 and the 24 f1.4 II can comment on their experience.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 27, 2012)

Interesting. Do you shoot at 24mm a lot? If you do, I do have the 24L lens myself and that is a really, really good lens. It will produce better images at 24mm than the 16-35L at 24mm. If you don't shoot at 24mm a whole lot, I'd suggest something that will surprise you. With your current kit I'd personally buy the 24-105L zoom lens. Then you can shoot wherever you want from 24 to 105mm whenever you want. If you really want a wider angle prime though, the 24L is really good.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 27, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> I am considering Swapping my 16-35 f2.8 II for a 24 f1.4 II.
> 
> When I had my 40D, the 16-35 was on my camera most of the time. The 24-55 effective focal length suited many situations very well. Since getting the 5D3, I have rarely used it nd when I have, it has only occasionally been used wider than 24mm.
> 
> ...



The 24mm 1.4L II is the fastest wide angle prime canon makes. It will serve you well on FF if your looking for sucking in light and still getting in the action. It has little distortion but massive vignetting at 1.4. (like a whole stop darker in the corners). Its color and bokeh are the best for its focal length. It renders similarly to the 50L, 85L, and 135L in terms of character.

If you own the 50L and 135L, Get the 24LII. Its awesome, and I prefer it over the older 35L.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 27, 2012)

Just get the focal length you are using the most, 35mm or 24mm. I use both, but looking at my overall usage, I use 35mm 3:1 over 24mm. Everyone is different, there is no right or wrong, and what some else does is of little help to you.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jun 27, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Interesting. Do you shoot at 24mm a lot? If you don't shoot at 24mm a whole lot, I'd suggest something that will surprise you. With your current kit I'd personally buy the 24-105L zoom lens. Then you can shoot wherever you want from 24 to 105mm whenever you want. If you really want a wider angle prime though, the 24L is really good.



Yes, surprising recommendation. I might consider the 24-70 f2.8 II as it would effectively replace what the 16-35 provided on my 40D, but I really do not like the barrel extension on lenses like the 24-70 or the 24-105.

Note: I also had the EFS 10-22 with the 40D, enjoyed it for awhile, but then rarely used it in place if the 16-35 (too wide).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 27, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. Do you shoot at 24mm a lot? If you don't shoot at 24mm a whole lot, I'd suggest something that will surprise you. With your current kit I'd personally buy the 24-105L zoom lens. Then you can shoot wherever you want from 24 to 105mm whenever you want. If you really want a wider angle prime though, the 24L is really good.
> ...



Ok, so that narrowed your choices down. The 24-70L II barrel might be just as bad as the 24-105L. If it is then you know you don't want that, so the 24L choice is the right one in that case. If it's not it'll be hard to ignore its flexibility and IQ. As an aside, I shoot landscape and indoors with the 24L and it is fantastic. The 24-105L nor the 24-70L II will match it at 24mm in IQ, at any aperture. It is relatively small and light as well.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 27, 2012)

The 16-35 works well for travel, especially when you're planning on traveling light. The 24 is better but the 16-35 is more versatile, plus all the good prime Canon options wider than the 24 cost more than the 16-35. If you won't need anything wider than 24, get the 24, but I'd try holding onto the 16-35 until you know you won't need something wider.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> ...massive vignetting at 1.4. (like a whole stop darker in the corners).



A stop (~1 EV) of vignetting wide open is pretty normal for most lenses. The 24L II actually has around *4 stops* of vignetting...massive, indeed. But still, a very nice lens.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 27, 2012)

You might consider the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II

I don't have experience with it, but it 'sounds' like a good addition to your prime kit, possibly worth at least testing it before you make any purchase. I personally would only get one to own (either 24mm prime, the tilt-shift, the 16-35, or one of the 24-70 etc. zooms) and just rent the others for special occasions.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jun 27, 2012)

Appreciate the feedback/recommendations/comments.

I am going to order the 24 f1.4, try it out next to my 16-35 and see for myself. My feeling, based on what/how I use the 16-35 that the 24 is going to be the right choice. Several comments here support that also. If the 24 is the winner I expect it to be, the 16-35 will be "For Sale" shortly thereafter.

Let the test drive begin.


----------



## JoaoPedro (Jun 28, 2012)

Having the same doubt here =)
I've used the 16-35 ii during two years with some crop cameras (40D and 550D) and was very pleased with the results. I've now moved to full-frame and the corner performance of the 16-35 ii with the 5Dii is very disapointing when wide open (f2.8) and even when stopped down (f8.0).
I've considered the 17-40 f4.0 but I need the extra stop for indoor shooting and the 17-40 isn't that better in the corners.
I'm now considering the 24 f1.4 ii but I don't know if it will be much better in terms of corner performance. I can't rent one for tests, so I would appreciate any feedback =)
Thanks


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > ...massive vignetting at 1.4. (like a whole stop darker in the corners).
> ...



Alot Indeed. 8)


----------



## tron (Jun 28, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> You might consider the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II


+1 I do have the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II

It is very useful to get rid of these converging verticals if you are into architecture (including shooting archaelogical places). Up to now I have not used the tilt feature.
In addition it is very sharp with practically no vignetting.

So if someone has no need of very open apertures and does not care of AF the TS-E is much better value for money


----------



## drjlo (Jun 28, 2012)

Not to mention that current-gen TS-E lenses are built on a level way beyond anything else from Canikon. It's a sheer marvel of precision engineering and the easiest-to-manual-focus lens I have ever used.




Canon 5D MkIII by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 28, 2012)

JoaoPedro said:


> Having the same doubt here =)
> I've used the 16-35 ii during two years with some crop cameras (40D and 550D) and was very pleased with the results. I've now moved to full-frame and the corner performance of the 16-35 ii with the 5Dii is very disapointing when wide open (f2.8) and even when stopped down (f8.0).
> I've considered the 17-40 f4.0 but I need the extra stop for indoor shooting and the 17-40 isn't that better in the corners.
> I'm now considering the 24 f1.4 ii but I don't know if it will be much better in terms of corner performance. I can't rent one for tests, so I would appreciate any feedback =)
> Thanks


I haven't used any of the 16-35 versions, but there is no contest when you compare the 24 f/1.4 MkII with either the 17-40 or 24-105. The corners on the 17-40 at 17mm on full frame are very soft and the 24-105 isn't much better at 24mm. The 24 f/1.4 is just sharper all over (although I don't open it up very much, as landscapes are my main use, with occasional low light useage), it also has much better contrast and colour reproduction, wth less CA/fringing and flare.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jun 29, 2012)

tron said:


> I do have the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
> It is very useful to get rid of these converging verticals if you are into architecture (including shooting archaelogical places). Up to now I have not used the tilt feature.
> In addition it is very sharp with practically no vignetting.
> So if someone has no need of very open apertures and does not care of AF the TS-E is much better value for money



Appreciate the recommendation for the TS Lens, I recognize that they are very good at what they do. As for the comment about _"better value"_ I do not get it. 


The 24 f1.4 is *$1600*, the 24TS f3.5 is *$2000*.

The 24TS f3.5 is very sharp with practically no vignetting, the 24 f1.4 *shot at 3.5* is amazingly sharp with practically no vignetting.

I have the 24 f1.4 in hand at the moment and will be testing this weekend. Initial feel and few shots I took right out of the box at 11P last night were, very impressive to say the least.

After the unboxing last night I am still confident that the 24 f1.4 is going to end up replacing my 16-35 f2.8II; so much so that I already took the photos for the eBay listing of the 16-35 f2.8II. We shall soon see.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 30, 2012)

The 24 and it's shallow depth of field and wide perspective render a unique image, I recemond it.


----------



## risc32 (Jul 1, 2012)

Why can't the TS lenses be a good value? The other day someone mentioned the 85L as a good value. Sure, you're looking into the 24mm1.4 so i'll suggest you get a lens with no AF, tilt-shift movements, and some 40 or so % higher price. yeah your welcome! Either there are lots of loons lurking this site, or they are actually just Canon employees. BTW- I do understand that TS lenses have their place and to some they might be a good value. I don't need anyone trying to take me behind the woodshed.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 1, 2012)

Because the TS lens is more than the 24L and the 24L is sharp at f/1.4. Why would I need a TS lens for indoor family shots and indoor family video? That's why it's not a good value, for the OP. For landscape and architecture, you better believe it's a good value. Some part of value has to be based upon need. The 24-70L II can be a good value, but I already own the 16-35L II, 24L, 35L, 50L, 50 1.4, 50 1.8. I'm sure it's a great lens, but has no value to me. Anyways, I recommend, highly, the 24 f/1.4L II to the OP.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jul 2, 2012)

The results from the weekend were very positive, I also love the look and feel of the 24 f1.4, this is the right replacement for my 16-35 f2.8. 

Having already replaced my 70-200 zoom with a prime, I am still getting use to sneaker-zoom, but the photographic results continue to be much better than expected; I am very happy with the primes.


----------



## tron (Jul 2, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I do have the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
> ...


it all depends on whether you need the 24mm at 1.4 to 2 often (and in that cases it will not be extra sharp and without vignetting...) vs. the 24mm with the capability to correct converging verticals (this is my mostly used application), stiching, and tilting.

If your needs fall in the first case very well you have made the best choice. If your needs fall in the second case now or in the future you will have to pay 2000 in addition to the 1600 you paid now...


----------



## tron (Jul 2, 2012)

tron said:


> IIIHobbs said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



That being said Iwould be interested in 24mm 1.4L II if it had less vignetting wide open (for astrophotography). I do not like the idea to have to correct that much vignetting in PP. Maybe the next (III) version...


----------

