# X-mas: 16-35mm 2.8 ii vs. canon 50mm 1.2



## SJTstudios (Nov 18, 2012)

hey, guys, trying to decide which lens i should go for for X-mas.
the two lenses are the lenses above. i have enough money to buy one. so which one should i chooses. i specialize in sports, portraits, and landscapes, so i want to choose, what would be better first. please also consider a 14-24 2.8 and a 50mm 1.2 ii. example, if i get the 16-35 now, i'll get the 50mm ii later.


----------



## rpt (Nov 18, 2012)

You have not mentioned what camera you use or the lenses you currently have and what percentage of your shots are sports, landscape and portrait. Without that it would be the preference of the person who suggests rather than what would be better for you...

My option (strictly for me) would be the 16-35L.


----------



## jhpeterson (Nov 18, 2012)

I think this is a question best answered by you. It's mostly a matter of which lens you'd find more useful, and what can't be done well with the equipment you already have. You didn't say whether you have a full-frame or crop sensor camera, but I'm assuming FF, since the 16-35 is much less useful on a crop and there are lenses better-suited for less money.
You mentioned that your favorite subjects are landscapes, portraits and sports. What is it you do more of, and in what kind of situations do you find your current set-up most lacking? If you find yourself wanting something wider for sweeping views, I'd recommend the 16-35. On the other hand, if you'd rather have fast glass for low-light conditions and indoor sports, I'd say get the 1.2. 
If I knew what you already own, I might be able to make a better call. What is your favorite lens now? And, is there something you have that you'd like to replace? Perhaps, if you can answer those two questions, you'll have your answer.

If it were up to me, I'd definitely get the 16-35. But, then again, I already have one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 18, 2012)

jhpeterson said:


> If it were up to me, I'd definitely get the 16-35. But, then again, I already have one.



See, I had the opposite thought. If it were up to me, I'd get the 50L...*because* I already have the 16-35L II.


----------



## candyman (Nov 18, 2012)

The 50mm f/1.2L can be nice for the x-mas indoor protraits  

And, if you live in an area with a stronger winter - so 100% snow chance - then the 16-35mm would give you great winter landscapes.

I would go for the 16-35mm but because it is on my list


----------



## Shane1.4 (Nov 18, 2012)

16-35 is my vote. 50mm is my favorite focal length but when I got the 1.2 I was very disappointed with it given the price. I sold it and bought another copy of the 1.4 which I like better. I recently got the 17-40 and love it on my 5d mkiii, and the 16-35 is supposed to be even better.


----------



## Jakontil (Nov 18, 2012)

The reason why i gave up 16-35 bcoz of its distortion amnd i believed it was meant for landscape

And the excuse why i moved on frm 50 1.2 bcoz of its range on FF aint just as good as the 35 for wider or 85 for portraits


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 18, 2012)

1. 16-35 II is no where near Nikon 14-24 in term of sharpness at f2.8. I will drop my 16-35 II if Canon releases new WA as good as Nikon 14-24. 

2. 50mm L.....I'm not sure either. Alot of poeple said is worth it. I still CAN'T see big different btw 1.4 and 1.2 in term IQ. I rented it couple weeks ago. My 2cents; I do not think 1.2 is worth it. I will wait for version II. I do regret for selling my 1.4 - it was sharp at 1.8

Final decision: 16-35 II and 50mm f1.4. Both lenses will cover your needs.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 18, 2012)

Are you looking for a lens you need, or just the best lens and don't actually have a use for it? I guess thats ok, but i usually have a use in mind before I purchase a expensive lens. If I don't, it just gathers dust.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 18, 2012)

50L. A TS-E 17 or 24 might be better for landscapes than the 16-35L II.


----------



## SJTstudios (Nov 19, 2012)

Great to hear, what may help, is that I currently use a rebel, but I'm moving up to eithe a 1d mark iv or 5d ii next year, since I've saved up enough, I could buy either now, but I'm lacking some stuff. My only super wide is my 18-55, but I also have a 50mm 1.8. My worry, is not having a sufficient lens for a future upgrade, but I could always ask to borrow money from my parents or hold off till.


----------



## SJTstudios (Nov 19, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> 50L. A TS-E 17 or 24 might be better for landscapes than the 16-35L II.



Return I need versatility, what I have now is the 70-200 mm 2.8 is ii, so a 16-35 and a 50 will give a good range. I don'to shoot on a field or a court, I shoot on a boat for competitive sailing, that is really besides the question. Because I otherwise shoot portraits/landscapes. But now that I think about it, I should probably get the 50mm 1.2l, I borrowed it one time and loved it, and I make $$$ off of portraits, so maybe for now is the best option, I could always just grab a 17-40, or pick up the 16-35 after a price drop for the 14-24 release.
And when I do shoot indoors for my younger brothers highschool basketball game, it might come in handy.

Thanks so much guys, but I am still open to opinions


----------



## Eli (Nov 19, 2012)

If I were you I'd sell the Rebel kit and get a 5d mkii (used or refurb) and 17-40 f4L, keep the 50 1.8 and since you also have the 70-200 2.8 is ii, it'd be perfect for portraits on full frame.


----------



## jhpeterson (Nov 19, 2012)

SJT, I have photographed sailing professionally since my early twenties, so hopefully what has served me well will work for you. While shooting boat-to-boat I'll use the 70-200 and 300 as my standard lenses and often work with longer ones, what I find I need for onboard shots is almost always wide. I think you'll find the 16-35 a perfect fit most all the time and the 50 will be too tight. 

I've attached the following pictures, both taken with this lens. To give you a better sense of scale, the boats are, respectively, 44 and 35 feet in length.


----------



## 87vr6 (Nov 19, 2012)

these are two very different use lens... so which do you want/need more?


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 19, 2012)

SJTstudios said:


> hey, guys, trying to decide which lens i should go for for X-mas.
> the two lenses are the lenses above. i have enough money to buy one. so which one should i chooses. i specialize in sports, portraits, and landscapes, so i want to choose, what would be better first. please also consider a 14-24 2.8 and a 50mm 1.2 ii. example, if i get the 16-35 now, i'll get the 50mm ii later.




They don't really compare in any way shape or form. So there is no "better" or "worse" here. I would start with the question what exactly you want to use it for, which focal length you prefer and for what, how you feel about narrow depth of field and how to use it. Sports, portraits, landscapes are three very different things and I personally would chose different lenses for each. Not that either of those lenses couldn't be useful in all three areas at times.
I personally have a bias towards primes and have always had a thing for fast 50mm lenses (on full frame that is). So the 50L was high on my list. I don't have the 16-35 yet but could see adding it at some point. To me it's more of a specialty lens while for others it's their go-to walk around lens (which for me in fact is the 50). Portraits? Yes the the 50 makes for an excellent portrait lens though for head shots I would maybe go for a longer focal length first (135L in my case). While for landscapes I would look at one of the TS lenses first.

Both your top choices are excellent so you can't really go wrong.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 19, 2012)

SJTstudios said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > 50L. A TS-E 17 or 24 might be better for landscapes than the 16-35L II.
> ...



The 16-35/50/70-200 combination works well. I currently carry that combination on trips where I need a large focal length range. Sometimes I miss having a mid-range zoom, but it's nice having low light capability.

If you intend on using a WA zoom for things other than pure landscapes, it might be worth holding out for the 16-35 instead of the 17-40. Environmental portraits can use the additional stop and better corners at larger apertures.


----------



## tron (Nov 19, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> 50L. A TS-E 17 or 24 might be better for landscapes than the 16-35L II.


+1000 Since I got these 2 TS-E lenses I haven't used my 16-35L I. I haven't decided on selling it though...


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 19, 2012)

The 50L is an amazing portrait lens. I'd love it even more if it was free. ;D

Perhaps this will be relevant.

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review


----------



## Axilrod (Nov 19, 2012)

They're both great lenses, and the 16-35 II is the only zoom I have left out of the ones I've had in the past (70-200 2.8IS, 2 different 24-70mm). But the 50L was the first Canon lens that I truly loved. It's easy to "blow it" with the 50L, but when you nail a shot you really, really nail it. The 16-35mm is great but not that sharp wide open. You may think that the 16-35mm is more versatile since it's a zoom, but I'd say the 50mm may be just as useful (if not more). They're really two different beasts. The 16-35mm is great for landscapes, 50mm is great for just about anything. 

Now if you can live without AF, you should seriously consider checking out the Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Makro. I was shocked at how much sharper it is than my 50L, I mean night and day difference, especially on the edges. I love Zeiss glass and have been trying to bring myself to get rid of all my Canon glass for almost a year so I can make a complete switch over. But I have sentimental attachments to my L lenses so it's been tough. 

Either way I think you'd be happy, but I feel like I've gotten some really special images from my 50L.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 19, 2012)

The 16-35 is no good for portraits... the 50 no good for wide shots... if you are budget limited...

Why not get both a refurb 16-35ii for wide angle and a 85 1.8 for portraits for the price of a new 50 1.2?


----------



## PackLight (Nov 19, 2012)

SJTstudios said:


> My worry, is not having a sufficient lens for a future upgrade, but I could always ask to borrow money from my parents or hold off till.



I just realized, this really was a thread about writing a letter to Santa Claus.

Really the two lenses are both lenses, both made by Canon but not really comparable to each other for your decission. Your question is should you get a really wide lens now, or a 50mm prime. I say go with the prime....unless you need a wide lens


----------



## EvilTed (Nov 19, 2012)

I have both and use them on a 5D MK3.
I personally dislike the 16-35 almost as much as the 24-105 kit lens that I sold.
I don't know what it is with Canon zooms, but I really dislike the IQ from them.
The only one I like is the 70-200 F/2.8 II but it still doesn't please me as much as the primes.

The 50 1.2 is a hard lens to get to grips with.
I was getting lots of focus problems, it appeared soft and dreamy etc and then I switched to back button focus.
It's like a new lens and is razor sharp even wide open @ 1.2.

My vote is for the 50 but it is also a heavy pig to haul around all day, so be warned...

ET


----------



## jhanken (Nov 20, 2012)

My input is get both the Canon 17-40L and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 for about the same or less than your choices, then when you are ready/able to get your next lens, sell one of these, take maybe a $100 loss on the trade, and get the appropriate Canon upgrade for the one you sold. Then repeat for the second lens you aspire to. The key here is for all that time, you will have enjoyed about 90% of the benefit of having your cake and eating it too with both lenses, and at the end of it you basically get to the same place for about the same cost.

The Sigma lens is friggen awesome, btw. Truly stupendous. And it focuses faster than the 1.2. You may decide to suffer the indignity of not sporting the red ring and just own that sucker for good.

Also, I find that if you take reasonable care of your lenses, eBay is a great way to monetize what you don't need any more. People actually get silly with how much they will pay for used stuff, often paying more than the rebate prices for new lenses with warranties.


----------

