# 24 f1.4L II or 16-35 f2.8L II



## waksfly (Mar 18, 2011)

I dont know which one to get because both are excellent lenses. Anyway i'll be using it for portraits(environmental, loose crop or anything that will add variations to my telephoto lens) on a 7D(waiting for the 5D III ) Basically i'm into portraits and landscapes. Thanks and please reply as i am still new to photography!


----------



## Admin US West (Mar 18, 2011)

waksfly said:


> I dont know which one to get because both are excellent lenses. Anyway i'll be using it for portraits(environmental, loose crop or anything that will add variations to my telephoto lens) on a 7D(waiting for the 5D II ) Basically i'm into portraits and landscapes. Thanks and please reply as i am still new to photography!



I would not get either for a 7D, a 17-55mm EF-s would be a easy choice. However, you indicate that you are getting a 5D MK II, which also means lens focal lengths will be 1.6 times longer to get an equivalent field of view.

For a 7D, a typical portrait focal length might run from 55mm to 85mm, with 100mm being fine as well. With a 5D, traditional focal lengths would run from 85mm to 135mm or even 200mm.

Longer focal lengths tend to flatter faces, while shorter focal lengths tend to exagerate facial features, noses look longer and larger, for example.

The common focal length here is 85mm, so that would be a good place to start for portraits.

You do not need ultra wide lenses for landscapes, some use telephoto lenses. I'd stay with 17 - 50mm on a 7D, and 24-85mm on FF. the 24mm L or a 35mm L would be a great choice for either 7D or 5D MK II.


----------



## waksfly (Mar 18, 2011)

if i go with the 16-35 i'm thinking it will be useful for my landscape needs where you have limited space to frame the scene, i can use the zoom to reframe. 24L II is better optically right? which is just perfect for portraits where i cud include the environment. thanks for the reply. anyway the 85 1.2L II is next after i fill my wide angle needs.


----------



## acoll123 (Mar 18, 2011)

I have a 7D and the 16-35 f2.8L II. I find the 16-35 is a great walk-around lens and is particularly good for Landscapes. I occasionally use it for full-body portraits and group shots. It would be an ultra-wide on a full-frame though. I also have the 24-105 f4.0 L and think it is my most flexible lens I have used it for landscapes, candids and portraits. It is almost too slow for any action photos indoor - the IS is great non-action shots indoor. One of the 85 mm prime lenses would be great for both the 7D and a FF. I have the 1.2 and can get some stunning shots - see this candle light photo at a birthday party. I know - the noise is significant, i probably need to work on it a little more . . .


----------



## Viggo (Mar 18, 2011)

You don't buy the 17-55 if you're going full frame, as that lens is an ef-s and won't fit a 5d. 

The 24 II L you don't get because of the superior IQ alone, you buy it because you get an f-stop of 1,4 instead of 2,8. It's the sickest piece of wideangle glass out there. And yeah, I have the 14 L II as well, but the 24 on my camera (1,3 crop) gives it roughly the same length as a 35 L will give you on FF, which is extremely useful lens. But for portraits? Nope.. You would use a 70-200 for example for general purposes and also protrait. The new 70-200 is the best zoom-lens ever made and it's scary sharp edge to edge on FF and VERY sharp wide open through all focals, no CA, and BLISTERING fast AF. Which makes it useful for everything, not just a specialized protrait lens.

If you want a lens just for portraits, the 85 L will do it better than any other lens. I traded mine for the new 70-200, but I have the 24 L II and the 50 L for lowlight and portraits.

Many people buy the best lenses because they think they will get better pictures, which is very untrue in many cases. I'm not saying you do, but you should really get a proper light-setup and learn how to control light and balance ambient and flashes when you want to go more into protraits. I have never heard or seen anybody taking professional portraits without having absolute awarness and/or control over all the light hitting the subject. A flat and boring light-portrait taken with a 5d2 and 85mm f1,2 L will give you crappy results anyway, compared to having a 350d with a 50mm f1,8 and proper light setup and full control. If you see a billboard with a hot chick in a commercial, do you wonder what lens they used or do you think, "wow, that's such cool light" ? ( I would say, wow, hot chick, though


----------



## waksfly (Mar 18, 2011)

Thanks Viggo! Yeah i'm really studying hard to fully understand the concepts of lighting.
8)


----------



## Viggo (Mar 18, 2011)

Read "Light, Science&Magic" and this blog:

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html

And you will know everything you need to know.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2011)

acoll123 said:


> One of the 85 mm prime lenses would be great for both the 7D and a FF. I have the 1.2 and can get some stunning shots - see this candle light photo at a birthday party. I know - the noise is significant, i probably need to work on it a little more . . .



Nice shot (although the axial CA of a fast prime results in the candles showing as purple). Personally, I don't like the noise on the 7D above ISO 800. You can see some big improvements by shooting RAW (if you aren't already) and using something like DxO (which handles noise much better than DPP, I think).

The 85L is a great portrait lens - in fact, I liked the focal length so much for that purpose that when I added a 5DII to my kit, I also added the 135mm f/2L to provide the same focal length and aperture (DoF-wise) of the 85L on a 1.6x crop body. But I still use the 85L a lot on FF.


----------



## acoll123 (Mar 18, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> acoll123 said:
> 
> 
> > One of the 85 mm prime lenses would be great for both the 7D and a FF. I have the 1.2 and can get some stunning shots - see this candle light photo at a birthday party. I know - the noise is significant, i probably need to work on it a little more . . .
> ...



Thanks - I agree about the noise - my 5DII is supposed to be arriving today! After the trouble in Japan, I finally decided not to wait for the 5DIII any longer. I already shoot RAW and use Aperture for all post processing but maybe I will check out DxO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2011)

acoll123 said:


> Thanks - I agree about the noise - my 5DII is supposed to be arriving today! After the trouble in Japan, I finally decided not to wait for the 5DIII any longer. I already shoot RAW and use Aperture for all post processing but maybe I will check out DxO.



Congrats on the 5DII! ISO 3200 shots come out just fine with that sensor. I think the combination of a 7D and a 5DII works very well, the former action/wildlife and the latter for portraits/landscapes. You get a different set of lenses (effectively), too. Plus you can share batteries acorss them.

Aperture doesn't offer lens/camera-specific corrections, which I find quite beneficial. Of the PP software that does, I think DxO does them the best - LR, for example, uses stock corrections based on estimates or sometimes even user-submitted profiles. DxO performs detailed testing of selected camera+lens combos, and designs specific correction modules for each. 

Here's a comparison test I did between DPP and DxO a while back.


----------



## waksfly (Mar 19, 2011)

The 85L is a great portrait lens - in fact, I liked the focal length so much for that purpose that when I added a 5DII to my kit, I also added the 135mm f/2L to provide the same focal length and aperture (DoF-wise) of the 85L on a 1.6x crop body. But I still use the 85L a lot on FF.
[/quote]

i wonder how you guys focus and recompose with these fast lenses because the depth of field is too shallow or do you compose/frame first then select the focus point? i hope you get my point...when i'm wide open with my 50 1.2 i focus first them recompose but it's too hard to get the shot i want because my focus point will b blurry sometimes.


----------



## 87vr6 (Mar 19, 2011)

You don't always need to shoot wide open... You can stop down some, like to 2 or greater, and still get great background blur, and more of the subject will be in focus too.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 19, 2011)

Waksfly,

I have both these lenses. To give you a idea of how I use them I quickly selected the past few weddings I've shot. 13,400 images selected. Of these 13,400 photos, the 16-35 f/2.8L II was used 5264 times. The Canon 24mm f/1.4 II was used only 726 times. The other photos spread between many different lenses. I've shot half a million wedding photos to date, and when I reach in my camera bag the 16-35 usually comes out first. Its a little more versatile and really fantastic in most situations. If I was forced to take only one of these lenses with me on a shoot of any kind it would be the 16-35. I would recommend you get the 16-35 for now until you can afford both. If you don't plan on being in very low light frequently then the 16-35 will serve you well! I of course LOVE my 24mm 1.4 and it really comes in handy for that low light stuff! For example taking advantage of that full moon last night with my bride and groom!  This is OFF camera with the 24mm 1.4 ii, no flash, no modeling lights, just moonlight and my flip flop as a mini tri-pod, unedited.


----------



## Admin US West (Mar 19, 2011)

prestonpalmer said:


> Waksfly,
> 
> I have both these lenses. To give you a idea of how I use them I quickly selected the past few weddings I've shot. 13,400 images selected. Of these 13,400 photos, the 16-35 f/2.8L II was used 5264 times. The Canon 24mm f/1.4 II was used only 726 times. The other photos spread between many different lenses. I've shot half a million wedding photos to date, and when I reach in my camera bag the 16-35 usually comes out first. Its a little more versatile and really fantastic in most situations. If I was forced to take only one of these lenses with me on a shoot of any kind it would be the 16-35. I would recommend you get the 16-35 for now until you can afford both. If you don't plan on being in very low light frequently then the 16-35 will serve you well! I of course LOVE my 24mm 1.4 and it really comes in handy for that low light stuff! For example taking advantage of that full moon last night with my bride and groom!  This is OFF camera with the 24mm 1.4 ii, no flash, no modeling lights, just moonlight and my flip flop as a mini tri-pod, unedited.


Was that image shot with a 5D, or 7D? The OP has a 7D.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 19, 2011)

5D MK II

As he is planning on upgrading to a full frame my recommendation still stands


----------



## Admin US West (Mar 19, 2011)

prestonpalmer said:


> 5D MK II
> 
> As he is planning on upgrading to a full frame my recommendation still stands



The 16-35mmL is a fine recommendation, he merely needs to understand that the field of view may not be as wide as it is with your 5D. He says he is new at photography, so any help we can give him in understanding the recommendations should be welcome.

BTW, Welcome to Canon Rumors, I did visit your web site, and I, for one would like to invite you to continue posting great images. Posting images to backup a recommendation is a great way to help out new photographers.


----------



## waksfly (Mar 19, 2011)

Thanks prestonpalmer!


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 20, 2011)

@waksfly, scalesusa makes a great point. Your camera has a 1.6x crop factor which means the Canon 16-35 will function exactly as a lens with a focal length of 25mm-56mm. This is still better than the fixed 38mm you would get using the 24mm f/1.4L. In order to really demonstrate this effect you would need to put a 10-22 on your camera, looking through that lens at 10mm is exactly what we see through the 5DMKII's Full frame at 16mm. 

Any of this making sense or did I loose you? HA! Feel free to ask questions, lots of guys around here including me can help you with the technical stuff.

I still highly recommend the 16-35 for where you are and what you are doing. The 16-35 works FANTASTIC on a cropped sensor and is actually a bit easier to use this way than on a Full Frame. Any time the majority of light passs through the center of the lens rather than the edges (where the troublesome distortion and light loss starts) you get a better result. If you do plan on going to a Full Frame at some point avoid ANY EF-S lenses as they are not compatible with a full frame body. Keep in mind, lenses are an investment and they do hold their value!

@scalesusa, Thanks for the welcome!


----------

