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

[7enderbender]

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.

They don't really compare in any way shape or form. So there is no "better" or "worse" here. I would start with the question what exactly you want to use it for, which focal length you prefer and for what, how you feel about narrow depth of field and how to use it. Sports, portraits, landscapes are three very different things and I personally would chose different lenses for each. Not that either of those lenses couldn't be useful in all three areas at times.
I personally have a bias towards primes and have always had a thing for fast 50mm lenses (on full frame that is). So the 50L was high on my list. I don't have the 16-35 yet but could see adding it at some point. To me it's more of a specialty lens while for others it's their go-to walk around lens (which for me in fact is the 50). Portraits? Yes the the 50 makes for an excellent portrait lens though for head shots I would maybe go for a longer focal length first (135L in my case). While for landscapes I would look at one of the TS lenses first.

Both your top choices are excellent so you can't really go wrong.

[Random Orbits]

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

The 16-35/50/70-200 combination works well.  I currently carry that combination on trips where I need a large focal length range.  Sometimes I miss having a mid-range zoom, but it's nice having low light capability.

If you intend on using a WA zoom for things other than pure landscapes, it might be worth holding out for the 16-35 instead of the 17-40.  Environmental portraits can use the additional stop and better corners at larger apertures.

[tron]

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

+1000 Since I got these 2 TS-E lenses I haven't used my 16-35L I. I haven't decided on selling it though...

[RLPhoto]

The 50L is an amazing portrait lens. I'd love it even more if it was free. 

Perhaps this will be relevant.

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review

[Axilrod]

They're both great lenses, and the 16-35 II is the only zoom I have left out of the ones I've had in the past (70-200 2.8IS, 2 different 24-70mm).  But the 50L was the first Canon lens that I truly loved.  It's easy to "blow it" with the 50L, but when you nail a shot you really, really nail it.  The 16-35mm is great but not that sharp wide open.  You may think that the 16-35mm is more versatile since it's a zoom, but I'd say the 50mm may be just as useful (if not more).  They're really two different beasts.  The 16-35mm is great for landscapes, 50mm is great for just about anything. 

Now if you can live without AF, you should seriously consider checking out the Zeiss ZE 50mm f/2 Makro.  I was shocked at how much sharper it is than my 50L, I mean night and day difference, especially on the edges.  I love Zeiss glass and have been trying to bring myself to get rid of all my Canon glass for almost a year so I can make a complete switch over.  But I have sentimental attachments to my L lenses so it's been tough.

Either way I think you'd be happy, but I feel like I've gotten some really special images from my 50L.

[K-amps]

The 16-35 is no good for portraits... the 50 no good for wide shots...  if you are budget limited...

Why not get both a refurb 16-35ii for wide angle and a 85 1.8 for portraits for the price of a new 50 1.2?

[PackLight]

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.

I just realized, this really was a thread about writing a letter to Santa Claus.

Really the two lenses are both lenses, both made by Canon but not really comparable to each other for your decission. Your question is should you get a really wide lens now, or a 50mm prime. I say go with the prime....unless you need a wide lens 

[EvilTed]

I have both and use them on a 5D MK3.
I personally dislike the 16-35 almost as much as the 24-105 kit lens that I sold.
I don't know what it is with Canon zooms, but I really dislike the IQ from them.
The only one I like is the 70-200 F/2.8 II but it still doesn't please me as much as the primes.

The 50 1.2 is a hard lens to get to grips with.
I was getting lots of focus problems, it appeared soft and dreamy etc and then I switched to back button focus.
It's like a new lens and is razor sharp even wide open @ 1.2.

My vote is for the 50 but it is also a heavy pig to haul around all day, so be warned...

ET

[jhanken]

My input is get both the Canon 17-40L and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 for about the same or less than your choices, then when you are ready/able to get your next lens, sell one of these, take maybe a $100 loss on the trade, and get the appropriate Canon upgrade for the one you sold. Then repeat for the second lens you aspire to.  The key here is for all that time, you will have enjoyed about 90% of the benefit of having your cake and eating it too with both lenses, and at the end of it you basically get to the same place for about the same cost.

The Sigma lens is friggen awesome, btw.  Truly stupendous. And it focuses faster than the 1.2.  You may decide to suffer the indignity of not sporting the red ring and just own that sucker for good.

Also, I find that if you take reasonable care of your lenses, eBay is a great way to monetize what you don't need any more. People actually get silly with how much they will pay for used stuff, often paying more than the rebate prices for new lenses with warranties.