How Does the 16-35 f2.8 II L compare with the 24 1.4L Prime ?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jon_kobeck|1, Aug 1, 2009.

  1. I am in need of something wider then my 35 f1.4L which is the best lens I have ever shot with by no exception. So I am tossed between the 24L prime or the 16-35L zoom. Anyone have any opinions as which one is "better" as far as IQ ?
    The 35 I find often times is just a tad too close for me, it would be nice to be wider.
    BTW I also use the 50 1.4 although not the L version its also a very good lens and I will be adding an 85 1.4 non L lens which hear is very very close to the L counterpart at 1/4 of the price.
    but it seems like the majority of the work I do I am at 35 or even below. At one time I owned the 28mm that Canon puts out but that lens was a horror, in my opinion. I wish they made an L version of the 28, that would be ideal.
    I do mostly fine-art street photojournalism type of shooting. If anyone wants to see its www.jonkobeck.com
    Cheers!
     
  2. I can't give a first hand account on a comparison between the two. Here's a link that shows test charts between the two:
    http://the-digital-picture.com/Revi...p=480&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=0
    I have the 35/1.4 and also the 24/1.4 II. I'm really happy with the 24. Like you, I wanted wider than the 35. But I also use it frequently at f/1.4. I was debating on the 16-35/2.8 II, but in the end, I decided the 1.4 would give me more flexibility. I've had it about a month or so, and I'm happy with the results so far.
    Eric
     
  3. If you have the 35mm f/1.4, you'll want the 24mm f/1.4 I or II. The 16-35mm is a great lens but a bit different and not nearly as fast. I have the 16-35mm I and the 24L II. The 16-35mm is my favorite walk around lens (on a 1DIII) and the 24LII is my primary dog shooting lens. It just has a different look... better background blur.
    Could you sell the 35mm f/1.4 and get the 24LI and the 16-35LI? It was terribly hard for me to sell the 35L but like you said... it felt a little too close for me.
     
  4. I have the 16-35 F2.8 II zoom and it is a great lens, much better than the Mark I I tested but did not buy (I bought the 17-40 F4 as a stop gap). However, for absolute quality the 24 F1.4L II is a better lens, especially when used at F2.8 or smaller. If you really want a zoom the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is a much better lens than the Canon - I debated it but in the end decided i could not be bothered with the limitations of using a Nikon lens on an adaptor so i bought the Canon zoom
     
  5. I have the 24L mark I(1st one) and just three weeks ago I returned the 16-35L mkii from lensrenatldotcom. I must say both are great lenses where I find the 24mm to be a bit more "specialized" lens. Great on crop body and very nice on my 5d2. I use most for low light indoor photography. I found the 16-34 to be more useful outdoors, since its a zoom and the 16mm end is very cool on FF. I did a test at 24mm for both lenses at f2.8, the 24mm is a bit sharper and has no vignette. The pro's of the 16-35 are a more versatile lens, weather sealing, the cons, its wAY HEAVIER than the 24 and uses 82mm filter. I would buy the 24mm in your case, but I love primes.
     
  6. I don't have the 24mm, but I do use the 16-35 quite often. Great lens! Let me steal a line coined by a fellow forum member here on Pnet (I apologize to the original poster since I can't remember who it was)...
    The 16-35 f/2.8 II is better than the 24 f/1.4L at all focal lengths from 16 to 35 except 24mm.
     
  7. Sell me 35 1.4L to buy both the zoom and the 24L prime? Hmm well iI never though of that, but that would be heart-breaking. I really do love that 35L, BUT on the other hand, the big question here is, once I do get the 24L, just how often will I be using the 35L ?
    I suspect the 24 will be on the camera most of the time.
    Just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if there will be times when I will prefer the 35 to the 24?
     
  8. Just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if there will be times when I will prefer the 35 to the 24?​
    That's really up to you, but personally, if I were going to be doing close portraits, the 24 is a bit too wide for my tastes. The 35 would be better in that case. The 24 will make the nose look quite big.
    I traded my 16-35II for a 24II. I haven't regretted it. Some would miss the wide end, but I find 16mm to be just wide enough to be dangerous. I'm happy staying within the 24 for wide angle.
    As a side note, as a resolution freak, I'm extremely happy about the new 24 prime.
     
  9. Jon, 35mm is probably the weakest performance of the 16-35 F2.8 II. It appears to be optimized more for the wide end. My 24-70 F2.8 is better at 35mm than the wider zoom. If you can accept slightly weaker performance of the zoom but the extra versatility than sell the 35mm F1.4L. The zoom is a great lens but it is still a wide angle zoom with all of the weaknesses of that design. I do not really find it's size and weight an issue but filters are a problem at the 16mm end. You need a thin pol or skylight filter and if you wnat to use square filter you need to go bigger than Cokin P and even here the mount can cause vignetting.
     
  10. Jon:
    I still switch to the 35/1.4 quite often.
    How often do you shoot wide open? If not very often, then maybe the 24/1.4 + 16-35/2.8 is a good combo. If all the time, then I'd get the 24/1.4 now, and the zoom later, if you think you're still missing something.
    Eric
     

Share This Page