Which lens?? 16-35 f/2.8 or 24mm f/1.4??

[jackie_boldt]

I am planning on purchasing a new wide angle lens for next wedding season. I have been going back and forth between getting a wide

angle, really fast, prime lens or an ultra-wide angle zoom lens. If you use either of these two lenses, which do you prefer? I know that

some people prefer to use either zooms or primes, but is there anyone out there that uses both? In your opinion, what are the pros & cons

of both lenses?

 

I love how fast the 24mm lens is, however it is missing the ultra-wide option and the zoom option, which isn't as big of a deal for me.

 

Thanks for the insight!!

 

Jackie

[elaine marie]

Jackie<P>

 

I have both and love both. At one point I was going to sell my 16-35 because I just don't use it that much. A few weddings back though I had a huge family group to do and was glad I had it in my bag.I shoot most of my weddings with the 35 1.4 on one camera and the 85 1.2 on the other with my assistant shooting with the 70-200 the 3rd. I love this combination of focals and it covers pretty much everything for me.I love shooting with my primes and would never be with out my 35 but sometimes you will need the extra wide of the 16-35.So if you could only pick one I guess I would suggest getting the 16-35 so that your covered on the wide focal.

 

<P>Elaine

[elaine marie]

Ooops, just realized you are talking the 24 1.4. I opted for the 35 as I love that focal length for just everyday shooting. The 24 would me more of a special occasion lens for me.But that's just me.<P>

Elaine

[cariad]

Elaine is that the Canon 35 lens a canon lens???? Do you have any samples shot with that lens?

Thanks........ :)

[elaine marie]

Steffi,<P>

 

Yes, on my website listed on my portfolio page if you go to the client proofing and click on the engagement gallery,almost all of the first 2 engagement sessions Erica and John and Jamie and John were taken with that lens. Also under weddings the Amanda and Titus wedding was mostly shot with the 35. If you are thinking about it....do it ! You will be happy you did!!! I used to shoot mostly with the 24-70...it now sits on my shelf and will up for sell soon.<P>

 

ELaine

[elaine marie]

Steffi,

 

<P>One more thing. If you get the focus dead on it is so sharp that you can crop the pic to almost nothing and it's still clear and sharp. So even some of those closeups were taken with the 35 and cropped.<P>

 

Elaine

[picturesque]

What else do you have in the way of wide lenses? I think it basically comes down to whether you would use the wide aperture more, with all the bonuses that come with having the wide aperture. I don't have the 24mm f1.4, but I do have the 16-35mm f2.8. It also depends a bit on how you shoot. If you have two camera bodies going at the same time. If you use natural light as much as possible. If you have a camera that can be used at high ISO without much compromise. I use the 16-35mm on my 5D for the extreme wide angle mostly. I feel comfortable shooting the 5D at ISO 1600, which helps quite a bit when using my f2.8 zoom. For most wide shots, I don't find the wide aperture that useful with selective focus, so I'd probably opt for the 16-35mm. I use zooms more for the wider angles, and have only primes for the telephoto end, but that's me.

[William Michael]

You do not state what body(ies) you are using & what other lenses you have, which IMO is important to allow any

tailored, and potentially more useful response.

 

However, as I use them:

 

The 16 to 35F2.8L MkII is my standard working zoom on my 20D / 30D. The 24mmF1.4L gives me a fantastic

38/F1.4 on both of these bodies.

 

The 24F1.4L is too wide for many applications (at Weddings) on my 5D as I have a personal warning bell about

anything wider than about 28mm (135 format) for groups, - I would rather rely on my arranging skills. But when I have

used the 24mmF1.4L on my 5D, it is grand, especially inside larger Churches etc where F1.8 / F2 etc come into

play: provided the perpendiculars at the edges are monitored (or post corrected).

 

Keeping comments within the Canon range of equipment:

 

IMO, the 24 and 16 to 35 are both integral components of a two format, Wedding Kit, neither can be done without. If

I were working APS-C format only, there would be no need for the 16 to 35, I would opt for the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS. If

I were working 135 format only, there would be little use for the 24, I would opt for the 35mmF1.4L instead. And one

reason why I personally do not like APS-H kits for Weddings, is because there are both 16 to 35 and 24 to 70F2.8

zooms; and also fast 24, 35, 50, and 85 Primes.

 

But, as mentioned, it would help to know what family of lenses and bodies is behind your choice between these two

lenses, as neither will stand alone, but rather need to fit into your kit.

 

WW

 

PS: you should be looking at the EF16 to 35F2.8L MkII - (not the original)

[jackie_boldt]

Thanks everyone!

 

I realized, William, that I did forget to mention the bodies I would be using this lens on. Currently, I use a 5D as my

primary and a 30D as my secondary. I have the 50 f/1.2 on the 30D and switch lenses more frequently on my 5D. I

have a Tamron 17-35 ultra-wide that I currently use, however I know the Canon 16-35 (yes, the Mark II version... sorry,

left that part out as well!) is a much better piece of equipment. If I were to get the 16-35, I would get rid of my 17-35. If I

opted for the 24mm (or even the 35mm), then I would keep the 17-35 around and continue to use it. I hope this helps! I

know that if I did purchase the 24mm, it would be just over a 35mm on my crop sensor camera, so that would be another

benefit to the 24mm.

[William Michael]

> I know that if I did purchase the 24mm, it would be just over a 35mm on my crop sensor camera, so that would be

another benefit to the 24mm. <

 

Yes, I think that is a big advantage.

 

That is why I personally own the 24 and NOT the 35. (Though the 35 is on my ``to buy list`` but a low priority at this

time)

 

And also having a dual format kits for the studio, is why we bought 24 and 50 combination primes for the studio 5D /

30D kits: giving equivalent fast primes 24; 38; 50; and 80, (FoV in 135 format).

 

***

 

With the added information provided, I suggest you get the 24 over the 16 to 35.

 

My thinking is:

 

You already have a suitable tool with the Tamron zoom.

 

At most Weddings, you will likely not need F2.8 (or F3.5 to avoid vignette) at 24mm through to 35mm on the zoom.

On the occasions you do need to go to F1.8 or even F1.4, and be at the wide, you should be able to accommodate

that scenario with the 24mm and some creative composition.

 

So even if you sell the Tamron and buy the 16 to 35, the net gain IMO is not that great, for your business.

 

***

 

I think when adding a piece of equipment there are many elements to consider, not the least of which is output (or

return) for the money invested.

 

I think this point is more than often overlooked by many Professionals who let their heart (i.e. personal wants or

sometimes minute quality issues) get in the way of ``Professional``: meaning ``Business needs``.

 

Good luck with your choice, I am interested to hear what you decide and more interested about the reasons why you

decided.

 

WW

[wedding-photography-denver]

Firstly, I don't think its an either or.

 

If you cannot afford both, the 16-35 would be my first choice to cover the FL. If you have that FL covered already, then the 24 would be next.

 

I rarely shoot much wider than 24 (FF sensor) but like the option to.

[picturesque]

Forgot--besides not using selective focus that much with wide angles, you can hand hold a wider lens using a slower shutter speed than teles and normal lenses, so a wide zoom might have, basically, only a one stop advantage (more if you are steady) re hand holding, than an f1.8 or f1.4 lens. Upping the ISO, you can basically gain the two stop advantage back. Of course, really pushing the limit of low light, the wider aperture is always going to win.

 

So far, the quality difference hasn't been discussed. The 24mm f1.4 is going to produce better quality for sure. Whether that is worth it to you is your call.

[William Michael]

. . . neither has the relative outlay (cost) been discussed.

 

 

Over this side of the pond, the 24L is significantly less expensive than the 16 to 35, where as a few months ago this

was not so much the case. This is a factor of the daily turmoil in exchange rates; how many units have already

landed; and what units sell the most quickly.

 

Your situation might be different.

 

 

 

 

***

 

On another Nadine point . . .

 

I understand the difference between ACTUAL camera movement and RESULTANT camera blur and the relationship

to Focal Length . . . and that also came into my thinking a while back, when choosing the studio kits - - - why spend

money on a really fast wide Prime, when the 16 to 35 and good technique will cover 99% of scenarios?

 

My decision came to buy the 24F1.4L solely because of the dual format kits: it is the``38`` on the 20D & 30D, and

the overall flexibility that gives.

 

As I mentioned if I had only 135format digital (like my film kit) I would have a fast 35mm lens . . . and maybe a slower

(and much cheaper) 20mm Prime.

 

Though I have to admit the 24 wide open on the 5D in a dim bar, is a pretty amazing capture, and I am a bit more

about Photography fun now – whereas I was more business focussed, before. . . but that also could be translated to

some pretty amazing shots at the Reception for PJ style talents. . . a touch of Vignette and Sepia . . . is that

passe, or is it the new, ``new``?

 

WW

[kiva]

I recently purchased the 24 f1.4 as a back up on my 5d canon camera for my normal use of the 17-55 f2.8 on my 20d.

 

More recently my 17-55 f2.8 went in for repair and I was pleased to have the 24 f1.4 as a back up: I put it on the 5d and I'm in love with the sharpness and the quality of the image files.

 

I would mention that I've discovered that I love the look this lens gives in the Getting Ready images and the Reception images when things are close and the action is fast. (look at my website at my last two or three weddings for samples if interested).

 

It's a great lens ... I do find that it's not the perfect lens, for me, for doing static portraits or posed groups unless you pay a lot of attention to your angles and where you stand and so forth ... all in my opinion for my style as always.

[jackie_boldt]

I think I'm going to go with the 24 f/1.4 and stick with my current Tamron 17-35 for my really wide angle shots. I was at a

wedding last Saturday that was extremely low light, in which this lens would have been ideal for! Besides, I think the 24 will

be great on the new 50D I just purchased :)

 

Thanks all for the advice!