24 F/1.4 L vs 16-35 F/2.8 L

[alberto greco]

Hi everybody,

 

I am thinking about purchasing one of these two lenses (for replacing my 17-40).

I read some reviews and comparison of these lenses and I was particulary

interested in the lens test provided by www.photozone.de regarding these two lenses.

It seems to the them that the zoom performs pretty much the same as the prime

(sometimes - i.e resolution - even better). Has someone tried both of these

lenses? can the results of photozone be considered reliable? Assuming that the

prime would be better, is this difference "visibly noticeable" (at 24 mm of course)?

Quality is my first goal in taking pictures, and thus if the zoom is the same

that (or at least close to) the prime , I would buy the more flexible zoom.

 

Any comments or previuos expirience are welcomed.

ciao

 

Alberto

[astcell]

I traded my 24-70/2.8 straight across for the 35/1.4, and I plan to buy the 24/1.4 next. I find hat the primes will focus faster in dim light. I have always found primes to be crister and sharper. If you can afford the extra money, weight, and burden of prime lenses they are still the best way to go.

[charles_mason]

I don't know about the 24/1.4, but the 16-35 is a dog. Even the Canon reps admit it at trade shows. Corners are terrible. If you are using a reduced frame digital, you may not notice as much, but it is still there. At 16mm, 2.8 and full frame the corners are soft probably 1/3 into the frame. The 17-40/4 is much better, and cheaper, though down one stop. I own both, and only use the 17-40. I also tested about 1/2 dozen of the 16-35s, and found all to be the same, so I don't have a lemon. Avoid it at all cost!

[jeff_plomley1]

I have to disagree with Charles on the 16-35/2.8mm optic. Mine is tack sharp, even to the

corners on my 1v's shooting RVP-50. My main application for this optic is landscape where I

am often using Singh Ray polarizers, so I need the 2.8 aperture to ensure precise manual

focusing with a dimly lit viewfinder. Have you considered a Leica 21-35mm and a

Cameraquest adapter?

[digitmstr]

>>I find hat the primes will focus faster in dim light<<

 

Not really - what you are saying is that YOUR camera focuses more precisely (with less hunting) with an f/1.4 lens. If you were using a prime with f/4 you could be saying that it wouldn't focus as fast as yor faster primes. But, that's in relation to aperture and the camera's AF system.

 

And to Charles: if the 16-35 is a dog we all must be living in kennels...

 

Canon reps have never said what *you* claim they say at trade show. The 16-35 remains the BEST zoom in that range, anywhere...except in your world, of course.

[charles_mason]

"Canon reps have never said what *you* claim they say at trade show."

 

Well, **you** are wrong. They have said admitted this lens is a turkey and needs a re-design. But even so, your statement is absurd. How could you possibly know what all Canon reps say, good or bad, to all people at all trade shows?

 

Have fun!

[marknagel]

"...but the 16-35 is a dog"

 

Maybe "top dog". I love imine. Before my 24-70L was on camera 95% of the time, now the 16-35L is seeing more and more camera time. Sharp, fast focus, great color.

 

Mark

[lovcom_photo]

Charls Mason does not know what he's talking about. I doubt he has either of the lenses 16-35L and 17-40L like I do.

 

The Canon 16-35 IS NOT a dog. Canon reps all around sing this len's praises, as do thousands of owners, many of who have trade up from the Canon 17-40L. The Canon 17-40L IS NOT better; the differences between these two are negligable at best.

 

I know, I have both.

 

I also have the 24L and let me assure the originla poster, that the 24L does in fact provide better image quality then does ANY zoom lens at 24mm, L or otherwise.

 

The 35L is even better. I have both of these primes. I also have the 24-70L, 70-200L IS, 100-400L, and 24-105L so I have done many comparisons.

 

All Canon L primes are better then all Canon L zooms at their respective focal ranges.

[mike sisk]

I have all three of the lenses being mentioned in this thread. IMHO, for all intents and

purposes, they all pretty much perform the same when it comes to taking pictures.

 

<p>I also agree with the majority here in that the 16-35mm is a very fine lens. Here's a

few snapshots I took at a car show yesterday mostly with this lens and I don't see how it

could be sharper: <a href="http://mikesisk.com/ford-show/">

http://mikesisk.com/ford-show/</a>

 

<p>There are some differences, of course. My copy of the 24mm f/1.4 is soft wide open

but sharpens up nicely once you stop it down a bit. Still, it makes quite acceptable pictures

at f/1.4. And being 2-stops faster than the 16-35mm (3-stops over the 17-40mm) the

viewfinder is much brighter. I don't feel the image quality of the prime is significantly

better than the 16-35mm.

 

<p>The 17-40mm is a very fine lens -- especially considering it's price -- but having a f/

4 maximum aperture I find the viewfinder image dimmer than I'd like. It's also nearly the

same size and weight as the 16-35mm so there's no savings there.

 

<p>In summary, IMHO, there's little reason to get the 24mm f/1.4 unless you need those

extra stops or want a prime. Get the 16-35mm f/2.8 if you can, but if you can't afford it,

the 17-40mm f/4 is a perfectly good piece of glass. All my opinion, of course.

[digitmstr]

>>They have said admitted this lens is a turkey and needs a re-design<<

 

Talk about absurd statement. Tell us the name of the rep and which show would that have been?

 

Again, Canon reps have NEVER said that, at anytime, anywhere in the world, in any langauge, at any shows. YOU are the ONLY one who claims to have heard such statement(s).

[digitmstr]

>>How could you possibly know what all Canon reps say, good or bad, to all people at all trade shows?<<

 

LOL! In othew words, you are making the shyt up...

[marknagel]

Yeh, and all the Ford Reps say the F-150 is a bad truck, and the Chevy Reps say the Corvette is slow! I'm sure the Nikon Reps talk trash about the Nikkor line. There's advertisment for your Comany.

 

M

[savas_kyprianides]

I will soon be looking into the 24L / 35L and / or the 16-35 decision making process and

read the comments of experienced users here with great interest.

[peter_white2]

Charles, I'm very sorry you have a dog.

 

My 16-35L is just dandy.

[michaelschrag]

Here's an interesting and thorough test of the 16-35mm: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/widezooms/widezooms1.html. If you look at this carefully you will see that the edge performance of this lens leaves something to be desired at wide apertures, at the wide end, compared to the Nikkor 17-35mm. This finding is also reflected in the tests found on photozone: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1635_28/index.htm - where edge performance wide open was again not fabulous (but not terrible either).

 

So whether or not you find this to be a great lens depends on what you shoot with, and how you shoot. If you shoot with a 20D or 5D, stopped down, there is little doubt that you would be a staunch advocate for this lens. However, a MK II user that shoots wide at the wide end of the 16-35mm may have a different story. In fact, that is why distagon 21mm prices have been driven up in the last few years. For many users shooting with a MK II the Canon wide glass has been somewhat limiting and the distagon is a lens that many have migrated to, even though they give up auto focus etc. There are numerous threads about this issue on Fred Mirandaﾒs site.

 

I think itﾒs possible for different users to come to different and equally valid conclusions about the quality of this lens ﾖ and any lens for that matter. But it does seem unlikely that Canon reps would have anything bad to say about a solid performer.

[KenPapai]

Charles (with zero portfolio) in charge writes,<br>

<i>"...but the 16-35 is a dog. Even the Canon reps admit it at trade shows. Corners are terrible. If you are using a reduced frame digital, you may not notice as much, but it is still there. At 16mm, 2.8 and full frame the corners are soft probably 1/3 into the frame."</i>

<p>

Some of the weirdest stuff I've read on this forum about the 16-35, ever. I wonder how this crazy stuff gets made up?

<p>

A dog ehh? I use that lens ALL the time, full frame and 1.6. It ain't no dog at all.

[michaelschrag]

Back to Alberto's question. For those of you who have posted and claim to own both lenses (16-35 & 24 L), could you do a quick comparison (tripod, mirror lockup etc)? Right now, for those of us who are interested photozone is about the only source I know of to compare both lenses under similar conditions. Its always nice to see actual pictures - center and edge comparisons - rather than opinions.

[pbizarro]

Well, one is a prime, and the other is a zoom... to each its own. I use both, for different things.

 

The 24 at f/1.4 is soft, other than that is a superb lens. Nothing new here.

 

The 16-35 at f/2.8 is softer in the corners than in the centre, but so what? So is the great Nikkor f/1.4 manual focus lens at f/1.4. All lenses are softer in the corners wide open. No big deal.

 

Alberto, if you want flexibility, buy the zoom. If you want a fast lens, buy the prime. If you want both things, buy both. Simple, really.

[digitmstr]

>>A user that shoots wide at the wide end of the 16-35mm may have a different story.<<

 

The story would be that he would have missed the shot otherwise. If you MUST shoot 16mm at f/2.8 chances are you are a PJ...of whatever variety.

 

The point is: the 16-35 is NOT a prime. It is a super-wide zoom designed to produce publishable images (and countless of them are published every day) in situations where a prime would miss the shot altogether. The Distagon is a great prime lens that won't give you the flexibility of a 16-35 zoom.

 

In the end it only matters what needs a lens fills. If one needs a fast, super-wide zoom, that's THE lens to get (which also happens to be the ONLY lens...;p)

[yakim_peled1]

<p> Shame on you. All this talk and no one gives a link to <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml">the LL comparison</a>? </p>

<p> :-)</p>

 

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>

[michaelschrag]

Alberto,

 

Here is an interesting review of the 24mm L by William Castleman: http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/24mm/index.htm He concludes "However, its performance doesn't quite match the stellar performance of the EF 35mm f/1.4L. If corner sharpness is important to you and you have enough light to stop your lens down to f/5.6 or f/8, a quality L-zoom (e.g., EF 17-40mm f/4L) outperforms the L-prime except for slight linear distortion." Very interesting since this statement contradicts some of the passionate statements made about zooms versus fixed focals in this thread.

[michaelschrag]

Thanks Yakim. I saw that review but its not very detailed. For example, even though all the lenses (I'm ignoring the TS 24mm) could have been tested at F2.8, they were not. In addition, the crops from different lenses were never put next to each other so the reader could actually compare. However, with a little effort here are edge comparisons of the 16-35mm and 24mm @ f8, juxtaposed. Not much difference. It certainly does not look like the prime is obviously outperforming the zoom.<div></div>

[james_symington1]

I have never owned or used the 16-35mm so will defer to others on that but I can tell you that the image quality of the 24mm f1.4 is superior to the 24-70mm, 24-105mm and the 17-40mm which I do have/had. To be precise when stopped down it is crystal clear and sharp into the corners on full-frame DSLRs whereas none of those others are. They get very close but they are simply not quite as good. But we know that any zoom is a compromise...right?

 

I would find it hard to believe that an extreme wide angle zoom like the 16-35mm can equal the 24mm L prime (ignoring its superior versatility of course) but I am willing to be converted. The 35mm f1.4 L is similarly excellent I might add.

[chiswick_john]

My 16-35L (on my 5D) when stopped down to F8/11 is superior to my 24mm TS-E, 24mm 2.8 EF, 28mm 1.8 and 28mm 2.8 - I have recently bought a CZ 28mm 2.8 which everyone raves about but at my usual shooting aperture for landscapes and interiors F8-F16 is is inferior. The only weakness in the 16-35 is at the edges and corners bellow 20mm. At wide apertures some of the above lenses are sharper at the edges but I have to ask in what realistic shooting situation do you shoot wide open with a wide lens and need the corners sharp - maybe if your hobby is shooting test charts? The adavantage of the 1.4 over the 2.8 is obvious to me - 2 extra stops. The ability to frame exactly the picture you want with a zoom and thus use 100% if the sensor easily outweighs marginal differences in edge performance and the large losses in overall picture quality if you have to crop into a frame or if your frame is too tight and you cant get back far enough to get the right composition.

[savas_kyprianides]

Very illuminating responses. The lenses are all good, with give and take among them. It is

mission specific if you are choosing only one of the lenses. Not unlike choices of camera

bodies.