16-35 quality to 50-1.4

[korys_ins]

I currently own 50 1.4 and the quality is very sharp but I also like

to have 16 35 2.8 is it a sharper lens worth the money? anyone have

photo comparsion, do you think i will need it? I also just bought 70

200 IS and sold my 17-85

[edward_h]

Your comparison is flawed in so, so many ways.

 

1) You're comparing a prime to a zoom.

2) You're comparing a normal prime to a wide-angle zoom.

3) You're comparing a 1.4 to a 2.8

 

Which one do you think is sharper?

[pbizarro]

Comparing different focal lengths is really pointless. These lenses serve different photographic purposes and tasks.

[ben conover]

The 50 1.8 is a sharper lens worth the money, compared to the 50 1.4

 

I don't know what you will need, but a 50mm lens is useful.

A fast wide prime is also a sound investment.

 

Cheers.

[kneesh]

John, if you already have the 50 f1.4 I would not sell it in order to purchase the 16-35 f2.8. The 50 f1.4 is a great prime lens that can be used in very low light conditions and it is the sharpest lens at the 50mm end that you will find.

If you are thinking of purchasing a lens with a wide angle you might want to consider the 17-35 f4. It is sharper than the 16-35 on the wide angle and it costs less money.

The fact that you already own a 70-200 IS lens I would keep this too as it is great for telephoto purposes.

I hope that I have somewhat helped you out.

[kneesh]

........correction 17-40 f4 not 17-35.

[picturesque]

I have both lenses and I agree with Les. However, when you get the 16-35mm zoom, remember that it is a wide zoom and hard to make as "perfect" as a normal prime. The corners are a little soft on the wide end, but the center should be sharp throughout. There have been reports of variance in quality with this zoom, so test yours immediately but realistically.

[troy_wilson]

I really don't see how the majority of these responses are off base as this question seems to be like comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about the quality of a prime lens to that of a wide angle and I'm not sure how that can be done.

I own the 50 1.4 and the 16-35. Do I get the same results from these two lenses? Absolutely not! If you are wanting to know overall which lens produces better images well the 50 1.4 is the sharpest prime lens that Canon makes for that short of a focal length. The 16-35 is a sharp lens but it would only compare with the 50 at the 16mm end and not at the 35mm end. For those that think it does I would suggest comparing 16x24 prints like I have made as opposed to looking at the images on a computer screen.

[thomas_t]

It is difficult to compare these lenses due to the very different focal lengths. If however you are asking a qualitative question, the 16-35 will certainly live up to what you are used to from your 50/1.4. I have both, and they each serve their purposes admirably. Build quality is higher on the 16-35 due to its L pedigree, heavier. But the 50/1.4 is pretty well built as well. For photo comparisons, see: www.jamesnachtwey.com or www.viiphoto.com , many of his photos were taken with the 17-35mm (earlier work) and the 16-35mm (later work), some with the 50/1.4 and 28/1.8. As you can see, his work doesn't suffer from using any of these lenses. good luck