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

<p>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 ?<br>

The 35 I find often times is just a tad too close for me, it would be nice to be wider. <br>

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. <br>

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. <br>

I do mostly fine-art street photojournalism type of shooting. If anyone wants to see its www.jonkobeck.com</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p>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:</p>

<p><a href="http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=0">http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4&LensComp=480&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=2&API=0</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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)...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 ? <br>

I suspect the 24 will be on the camera most of the time. <br>

Just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if there will be times when I will prefer the 35 to the 24?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if there will be times when I will prefer the 35 to the 24?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>As a side note, as a resolution freak, I'm extremely happy about the new 24 prime.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Jon:</p>

<p>I still switch to the 35/1.4 quite often.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Eric</p>