X-mas: 16-35mm 2.8 ii vs. canon 50mm 1.2

[SJTstudios]

hey, guys, trying to decide which lens i should go for for X-mas.
the two lenses are the lenses above. i have enough money to buy one. so which one should i chooses. i specialize in sports, portraits, and landscapes, so i want to choose, what would be better first. please also consider a 14-24 2.8 and a 50mm 1.2 ii. example, if i get the 16-35 now, i'll get the 50mm ii later.

[rpt]

You have not mentioned what camera you use or the lenses you currently have and what percentage of your shots are sports, landscape and portrait. Without that it would be the preference of the person who suggests rather than what would be better for you...

My option (strictly for me) would be the 16-35L.

[jhpeterson]

I think this is a question best answered by you. It's mostly a matter of which lens you'd find more useful, and what can't be done well with the equipment you already have. You didn't say whether you have a full-frame or crop sensor camera, but I'm assuming FF, since the 16-35 is much less useful on a crop and there are lenses better-suited for less money.
You mentioned that your favorite subjects are landscapes, portraits and sports. What is it you do more of, and in what kind of situations do you find your current set-up most lacking? If you find yourself wanting something wider for sweeping views, I'd recommend the 16-35. On the other hand, if you'd rather have fast glass for low-light conditions and indoor sports, I'd say get the 1.2.
If I knew what you already own, I might be able to make a better call. What is your favorite lens now? And, is there something you have that you'd like to replace? Perhaps, if you can answer those two questions, you'll have your answer.

If it were up to me, I'd definitely get the 16-35. But, then again, I already have one.

[neuroanatomist]

If it were up to me, I'd definitely get the 16-35. But, then again, I already have one.

See, I had the opposite thought. If it were up to me, I'd get the 50L...because I already have the 16-35L II. 

[candyman]

The 50mm f/1.2L can be nice for the x-mas indoor protraits

And, if you live in an area with a stronger winter - so 100% snow chance - then the 16-35mm would give you great winter landscapes.

I would go for the 16-35mm but because it is on my list 

[Shane1.4]

16-35 is my vote. 50mm is my favorite focal length but when I got the 1.2 I was very disappointed with it given the price. I sold it and bought another copy of the 1.4 which I like better. I recently got the 17-40 and love it on my 5d mkiii, and the 16-35 is supposed to be even better.

[Jakontil]

The reason why i gave up 16-35 bcoz of its distortion amnd i believed it was meant for landscape

And the excuse why i moved on frm 50 1.2 bcoz of its range on FF aint just as good as the 35 for wider or 85 for portraits

[Dylan777]

1. 16-35 II is no where near Nikon 14-24 in term of sharpness at f2.8. I will drop my 16-35 II if Canon releases new WA as good as Nikon 14-24.

2. 50mm L.....I'm not sure either. Alot of poeple said is worth it. I still CAN'T see big different btw 1.4 and 1.2 in term IQ. I rented it couple weeks ago. My 2cents; I do not think 1.2 is worth it. I will wait for version II. I do regret for selling my 1.4 - it was sharp at 1.8

Final decision: 16-35 II and 50mm f1.4. Both lenses will cover your needs.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Are you looking for a lens you need, or just the best lens and don't actually have a use for it?  I guess thats ok, but i usually have a use in mind before I purchase a expensive lens.  If I don't, it just gathers dust.

[Random Orbits]

50L.  A TS-E 17 or 24 might be better for landscapes than the 16-35L II.

[SJTstudios]

Great to hear, what may help, is that I currently use a rebel, but I'm moving up to eithe a 1d mark iv or 5d ii next year, since I've saved up enough, I could buy either now, but I'm lacking some stuff. My only super wide is my 18-55, but I also have a 50mm 1.8. My worry, is not having a sufficient lens for a future upgrade, but I could always ask to borrow money from my parents or hold off till.

[SJTstudios]

50L.  A TS-E 17 or 24 might be better for landscapes than the 16-35L II.

Return I need versatility, what I have now is the 70-200 mm 2.8 is ii, so a 16-35 and a 50 will give a good range. I don'to shoot on a field or a court, I shoot on a boat for competitive sailing, that is really besides the question. Because I otherwise shoot portraits/landscapes. But now that I think about it, I should probably get the 50mm 1.2l, I borrowed it one time and loved it, and I make $$$ off of portraits, so maybe for now is the best option, I could always just grab a 17-40, or pick up the 16-35 after a price drop for the 14-24 release.
And when I do shoot indoors for my younger brothers highschool basketball game, it might come in handy.

Thanks so much guys, but I am still open to opinions

[Eli]

If I were you I'd sell the Rebel kit and get a 5d mkii (used or refurb) and 17-40 f4L, keep the 50 1.8 and since you also have the 70-200 2.8 is ii, it'd be perfect for portraits on full frame.

[jhpeterson]

SJT, I have photographed sailing professionally since my early twenties, so hopefully what has served me well will work for you. While shooting boat-to-boat I'll use the 70-200 and 300 as my standard lenses and often work with longer ones, what I find I need for onboard shots is almost always wide. I think you'll find the 16-35 a perfect fit most all the time and the 50 will be too tight.

I've attached the following pictures, both taken with this lens. To give you a better sense of scale, the boats are, respectively, 44 and 35 feet in length.

[87vr6]

these are two very different use lens... so which do you want/need more?