Canon 16-35/2.8L II or 24/1.4L II ?

U

UncleBob

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8
Edit My Images
No
OK, up front, I know this a nice dilemma to have, but regardless I'd definitely appreciate any input.

I'm looking at purchasing either:
  • Canon 16-35/2.8L II, or
  • Canon 24/1.4L II
and I'm not sure which to opt for. The obvious pros/cons are:
  • 16-35 is wider
  • 24 is faster (good for low-light, DOF effects)

There's not a lot of price difference (they're both too bloody expensive, but that's another matter altogether). Either lens would be going on a Canon 40D - so FOVCF needs to be taken into account when considering how-wide-is-wide.

Who has either of the lenses? Or, better still, both? How do you use them? How shallow a DOF does the f2.8 of the 16-35 give you? I don't really care about size or weight of the lens.

My favourite lens is the 50/1.8 and I use it for a lot of indoor portraiture (kids, family, still life) and some night-time shots. This sort of thing:





I worry that the low-light performance of the 16-35 won't be good enough (I'm not a big fan of using flashes right now) - but I'm equally concerned that the 24mm just won't be wide enough for indoor shots in confined spaces (I struggle a lot with the 50/1.8 in this respect)

What I'm looking for a lens is that will extend the type of photography I'm doing already. Thanks in advance!
 
Got the same problem as you, but think I am going for the 24mm F1.4 L II.
Click to expand...

Almost...you're using a full-frame sensor so, for you, the 16-15 will be WIDE!
So, if you opt for the 24mm then you'll got a middle ground.

For me, the 24mm is just approximating 'normal'
 
UncleBob said:
I worry that the low-light performance of the 16-35 won't be good enough (I'm not a big fan of using flashes right now) - but I'm equally concerned that the 24mm just won't be wide enough for indoor shots in confined spaces (I struggle a lot with the 50/1.8 in this respect)

What I'm looking for a lens is that will extend the type of photography I'm doing already. Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
I think you may be right to worry about the low-light performance of the 16-35. It's a great lens but f/2.8 might well not cut the mustard for your particular style of shooting. Remember, the f/1.4 offered by the 24mm prime gives you shutter speeds which are 4 times faster...

Do you have a zoom lens which covers 24mm via some means or other? (EG kit lens?) If so it would be very easy to fix it at 24mm and see whether you think it would be wide enough for you.

Another alternative to think about would be the Sigma 20mm f/1.8. I know nothing about this lens other than its specifications, and obviously at ~£300 it won't be anywhere near the two Canons in terms of quality. But it might get the job done for you.
 
Do you have a zoom lens which covers 24mm via some means or other? (EG kit lens?) If so it would be very easy to fix it at 24mm and see whether you think it would be wide enough for you.
Click to expand...

I've a 28-135 which is close if not exact. Equally, I should just fix my 50/1.8 to f2.8 and see how that deals with the low-indoor-light. Good point.

Another alternative to think about would be the Sigma 20mm f/1.8.
Click to expand...

I looked at this and it just comes up as 'very soft' by all reports. Clearly it's a huge amount cheaper, so it's not exactly apples-for-apples but right now I've an opportunity (which could be a 1 off!) to buy a really good lens that I won't want to replace - I'm inclined to "buy once" rather than "buy cheap" right now.

You getting any 24/1.4 II in for hire soon? I looked the other night but you've only the MkI right now (which is retailing for a mere 800quid btw...if the MkII wasn't reported to be so much better, I'd be tempted to buy the MkI instead)
 
Having used both quite a bit, I would say that if you are not going to get a 35 F1.4 (which is you are an EF user you really should own at some point), then I would go for the 24. Though to get the subject isolation you want with the 24 you got to be pretty close, and then distortion comes into play.

Personally I own a 16-35 F2.8 II and a 35 F1.4. I think this is a good combo.

Oh if you are not on full frame, then maybe try a combo of 16-35 and Sigma 30 F1.4.
 
Oh if you are not on full frame, then maybe try a combo of 16-35 and Sigma 30 F1.4.
Click to expand...

My camera's not FF (40D) but I've tended only to own EF lenses. Sigma's 30/1.4 is "DC" which obviously isn't. Though, that is a nice combo...if more money that I have available!!

I would say that if you are not going to get a 35 F1.4 (which is you are an EF user you really should own at some point), then I would go for the 24.
Click to expand...

I hadn't looked at the 35/1.4 - again, was thinking in my head it wasn't a big enough difference to the 50/1.8 in terms of wide-angle - but I'll take a 2nd look today. Thanks for the pointer!
 
UncleBob said:
You getting any 24/1.4 II in for hire soon? I looked the other night but you've only the MkI right now (which is retailing for a mere 800quid btw...if the MkII wasn't reported to be so much better, I'd be tempted to buy the MkI instead)
Click to expand...
No immediate plans. At £1300 it's still priced for the early-adopers; I'd prefer to give it a couple of months to settle down a bit before we jump in.

And, whilst I acknowledge that the reviews say that the Mk II is definitely a better lens, I don't recall there being a huge mass of people complaining about the Mk I. The release of the Mk II took a lot of people by surprise. It was really motivated by Canon wanting to play catch-up with Nikon in the wide-angle quality stakes after the release of the Nikon 14-24, rather than being necessary because the Mk I was a poor performer. For most people, the Mk I still does a more-than-good-enough job.
 
StewartR said:
And, whilst I acknowledge that the reviews say that the Mk II is definitely a better lens, I don't recall there being a huge mass of people complaining about the Mk I. The release of the Mk II took a lot of people by surprise. It was really motivated by Canon wanting to play catch-up with Nikon in the wide-angle quality stakes after the release of the Nikon 14-24, rather than being necessary because the Mk I was a poor performer. For most people, the Mk I still does a more-than-good-enough job.
Click to expand...

After a week long test of a number of different lens and doing lots of shooting with them, I opted for the 24mm...and the MkI, at that.

Thanks for all the comments!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top