another "swap" question...

<p>hi everyone,<br>

i'm looking for opinions on the new 24mm f1.4 L mkII. currently i have 16-35mm f2.8 L mkII and i would like to swap it for 24 mm... two things i would like to know: <br>

- will i see any major difference in sharpness? let's say between f2.8 till f5.6 (after f5.6 16-35 is close to perfect, but i need wide lens for low light) and<br>

- how good this new lens is comparing to old version? by that i mean: AF, sharpness, color, distortions etc... i heard and read some opinions about the old version that it was sharp only in the centre and the rest of the frame was "so so"...<br>

now, i wouldn't like to be rude or arrogant or anything like this, but i'm looking for opinions only from people who actually own the lens (or even both) or used it for a while...<br>

btw if that's important i have 5d and i'm planing on getting 5d mkII within next 2 months...</p>

<p>thanks <br>

greg</p>

<p>I own the 16-35, use it with a variety of SLRs and can say I doubt it will make hardly any difference (unless you print rather large sizes). The 16-35 is my favorite Canon lens.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: I've never touched a 24 1.4L. I'd love one of course.</p>

<p>You'll find lots of useful test data on <a href="http://www.slrgear.com">www.slrgear.com</a>. They certainly haven't used these lenses for a while, and they probably don't own them, but they've certainly put a large number of lenses through their paces -- quite possibly even the ones you're asking about.</p>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Hi,</p>

<p dir="ltr">I also considered purchasing one of the wide L zooms but finally, about a month ago, I bought the 24mm 1.4L mkII. I use it on my 5D. </p>

<p dir="ltr">Your decision should be based on your needs and on the kind of pictures you like to take. I like shooting in natural light and I really like a narrow depth of field, so this lens is perfect for me. Also, this lens has many important advantages compared with the zooms:</p>

<p dir="ltr">1. Distortion free - buildings are strait ! ( while most zoom lenses have barrel distortions at the wide end ).</p>

<p dir="ltr">2. Sharpness, colors and contrast are all amazing. You are absolutely going to have a big smile when you see the results. I'm sure that this lens, at f2.8, is sharper than the zooms at f2.8 ( but I haven’t tested it ).</p>

<p dir="ltr">3. It is much smaller than a zoom - you don't draw too much attention and the people you photograph doesn't get scared when they see you.</p>

<p dir="ltr">4. The minimums focus distance is very small - you can have a really nice "wide-angle-effect" when you get closer to your object.</p>

<p dir="ltr">5. Low light photography is amazing ( indoors and outdoors ). This lens is a light amplifier and all you need is one lamp ( or street lamp ) to shoot hand held ( which I normally do ). Also, the auto-focus is very responsive in low-light situations.</p>

<p dir="ltr">I found that fixed lenses are a lot of fun and simple to use. When you use them - your mind is "set" on the lens' angle and you spend more time on thinking about your picture and the composition rather than zooming. That way - your final pictures become better.</p>

<p dir="ltr">I was actually going to buy the mkI but I had a very nice deal for the mkII and couldn't resist it...</p>

<p dir="ltr">You can find many images of the mkI on the web. This lens has a unique and charming effect when used wide open. You'll have similar or better results when you use the mkII.</p>

<p dir="ltr">Good luck with your decision.</p>

<p dir="ltr">Tal</p>

</p>

<p > </p>

<p> </p>

<p>See this review, sounds like a very nice lens <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">EF 24 f1.4 L II</a></p>

<p>You didn't say what other lenses you already have, what type of subjects you mostly shoot and if money was an issue or not. If money is an issue, I suggest you keep the 16-35 L and get (at least temporarily) the Sigma 24/1.8. OK, it's no L lens but it's very good for the price and the best of the three Sigma 1.8 wide primes. I bought one about three years ago. It doesn't get all that much use but it's there when my 17-35/2.8 L is a little too slow for the available light and it gets the job done.</p>

<p>hey guys, <br /> thank you all for your responses... i've seen all (i think) reviews before - slr gear, the digital picture, photo zone etc... i was just looking to get some "real life experience opinions"...<br /> biggest reason why i want to change is that "f1.4" performance... apart from that there is nothing that i can do with 24 that i couldn't do with 16-35...<br /> Terry,<br /> money is not an issue (well it's "half true" :) ) as i'm going to sell 16-35 if i decide to go for the 24mm... what i have is 16-35mm f2.8 L mkII, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2 L... also i had EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS and 24-70mm f2.8 L - i sold them both about year ago when i figured out that i don't use them as often as the others (i got some lighting + modifiers for that money)... after being in love with ultra wide angle (16mm) for a few months now i find myself using 24-28mm more often (99 % of the time when i use 16-35), and again those 2 f stops extra are needed for low light... what i shoot mostly: people, people outside, people inside and more people during weddings, in nightclubs, some make overs and i started doing some stock photography recently... in most cases i use f5.6 - f11, this changes when i shoot weddings and night clubs - then i need fast aperture lenses...</p>