16-35L or related primes

[madspihl]

I own the Canon 16-35L (and a bunch of other lenses for that matter), and basically I'd love som feedback on a choice I feel I'd like to make.

Either

1) keep the 16-35 and be happy with a really good all-round wide zoom which is quite sharp, has fast autofocus, and is often stuck on one of my camerabodies (mostly the 5D Mark II),

or 2) Sell the 16-35 and buy the following setup:

• Canon 14L 2.8 / Zeiss 15 2.8 / Rokinon(Samyang) 14 2.8 (autofocus not a must for me at this focal length)
• Canon 24L 1.4
• Sigma 35 1.4 (decided I prefer to get this one over the Canon 35L after reading reviews and seeing samples of image quality on FF

Setup is for full frame. Currently the 5D Mark II and III.

Keep the price out of this equation. I have just decided that if photography is what I want to do as much as I can, even if it's purely as a hobby, why not invest more in fast lenses, since I love the aperture versatility of 1.4s (and 1.2s for that matter).

Also, in theory I don't mind having more lenses to swap between in the 16-35 range if it means better glass and more possibilities in terms of lens speed. But what's your take on the combo of faster-glass-but-more-lenses-to-swap versus the walk-around-wide-zoom?

Has anyone else gone through this process, and do you have thoughts about making a change like this?

I am not going to keep the 16-35 . It doesn't make sense to me to have it if I buy the primes - even if it has a nice walk-around kind of versatility. I just have a feeling I wont use it with the primes hanging around.

Oh - and at these wider focal lengths I shoot mainly landscapes, night skies, and some action sports (snowmobiling, bmx).

Thanks!

Mads

[PackLight]

If wide your thing is mainly landscapes and the night sky I would switch to the 24mm f/1.4L or the TS-E.
You will get better image quality and control and be giving up the zoom range. It is the way I would go, but if you need the range you might think differently.

[madspihl]

If wide your thing is mainly landscapes and the night sky I would switch to the 24mm f/1.4L or the TS-E.
You will get better image quality and control and be giving up the zoom range. It is the way I would go, but if you need the range you might think differently.

Actually it's more:

Either the one wide zoom or the full combo of the 14, 24, and 35 primes (not just one of them). That's why I also would like to know how people feel about juggling more lenses versus a slower zoom.

At the 24 and 35 lengths I also do the odd street, sports, and environmental portrait stuff.

[PackLight]

It would be the same answer, you would be trading the convenience of the zoom for the quality and abilities of the primes.

You might consider just doing the 24 and 35mm and keep the 16-35 for when you need a wide lens or a zoom. Or the opposite, get the 14mm and 24mm and keep the 16-35 for when you need 35mm or the convenience of the zoom.

Any direction you go, I would get one of the 24mm L's

[CharlieB]

Keep the 16-35L, use it for most situations - its image quality is quite good, and its a pleasure to use, and you pretty much always have the right wide on the camera when its mounted.

Get the 24/1.4L - about half way through the range of the zoom, and its fast, for low light.

OR

The 24/2.8 IS USM might be ok for low light... but I think I'd rather have the 1.4 L lens instead.

[Jesse]

I would rather have the Canon 14mm + 24mm 1.4 + 35mm over the 16-35 any day, but I'm not super rich.

[infared]

I own the Canon 16-35L (and a bunch of other lenses for that matter), and basically I'd love som feedback on a choice I feel I'd like to make.

Either

1) keep the 16-35 and be happy with a really good all-round wide zoom which is quite sharp, has fast autofocus, and is often stuck on one of my camerabodies (mostly the 5D Mark II),

or 2) Sell the 16-35 and buy the following setup:

• Canon 14L 2.8 / Zeiss 15 2.8 / Rokinon(Samyang) 14 2.8 (autofocus not a must for me at this focal length)
• Canon 24L 1.4
• Sigma 35 1.4 (decided I prefer to get this one over the Canon 35L after reading reviews and seeing samples of image quality on FF

Setup is for full frame. Currently the 5D Mark II and III.

Keep the price out of this equation. I have just decided that if photography is what I want to do as much as I can, even if it's purely as a hobby, why not invest more in fast lenses, since I love the aperture versatility of 1.4s (and 1.2s for that matter).

Also, in theory I don't mind having more lenses to swap between in the 16-35 range if it means better glass and more possibilities in terms of lens speed. But what's your take on the combo of faster-glass-but-more-lenses-to-swap versus the walk-around-wide-zoom?

Has anyone else gone through this process, and do you have thoughts about making a change like this?

I am not going to keep the 16-35 . It doesn't make sense to me to have it if I buy the primes - even if it has a nice walk-around kind of versatility. I just have a feeling I wont use it with the primes hanging around.

Oh - and at these wider focal lengths I shoot mainly landscapes, night skies, and some action sports (snowmobiling, bmx).

Thanks!

Mads

I am tortured with this as well. I have the Canon16-35mm f/2.8 II. I also own the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 for tack sharp images when the situation can be handled with manual focus. The 16-35mm is weakest at the 35mm end, and I just purchased the new Canon 24-70mm II...so I have that end covered, with much sharper results.

I REALLY like all of the lenses you are looking at...especiallythe Zeiss and the Sigma. I plan on buying the Zeiss 15 mm next!...bit unlike you...I am going to hold on to my 16-35mm for when I need AF. Everthing in photography is a compromise!   
The new Sigma 35mm Artist Series looks mighty sweet, too.
Tough making these choices...isn't it! ...fun too, tho.

[Artifex]

Personally, I am a big fan of fast prime, so I am pretty bias on this subject! 

I have been using the Samyang 14mm for half a year now, and I must say that I am very impressed with it. It has a very good build quality and optical quality, with little to none CA. However, it does produce quite heavy distortion. From my personal experience and what I read, it is only slightly worst than the Canon 14mm, for a fraction of the price.

However, the Zeiss 15mm, on the other hand, seem's to be quite better than both Canon and Samyang. This lens is a piece of art in itself; the build quality seems exceptional. I don't have any first hand experience with it, but from what I read and saw online, it seem, in my own opinion, to be the best option, especially in term of image quality, although it is far from being cheap.

Since you were saying price was not a concern for you, and that you didn't mind manual focusing, I think the best option could be the Zeiss (although the Samyang is by far the best quality/price value, it is far from being a Zeiss).

[Zlatko]

Keep the price out of this equation. I have just decided that if photography is what I want to do as much as I can, even if it's purely as a hobby, why not invest more in fast lenses, since I love the aperture versatility of 1.4s (and 1.2s for that matter).

Generally speaking, for landscapes, night skies and actions sports, the aperture versatility of f/1.4 does not add much.  But for environmental portraits, a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 can be quite nice. 

[Kamakalele]

Aloha e Madspihl,
Don't know if what I have to say is helpful but,I have a MkII and MkIII.  I use primes primarily.  I have an EF 50 f1.2L, EF 135 f2L that I use most of the time.  My kind of shooting is run and gun though so I don't use wide angle too much.  I have a EF 24-70 f2.8L that I use for my wide angle stuff but seriously been thinking about getting Ziess glass.  My EF 50 f1.2L is awesome as is my 135 so I have considered getting a Zeiss ZE 85 f1.4*T or the new Zeiss 15mm wide angle monster.  I use my 135 80-90% of the time and enjoy it the most.  Although 1.2 L kicks ass!!!!!

[madspihl]

Thanks for all the feedback, guys

I might just, as one of you suggested, hold on to the 16-35L II for now to keep the wider end of the range covered (even if not at 14mm), and then move into the 24L 1.4 and the Sigma 35 1.4 to begin with, while I consider the 14mm options.

My challenge in all this is that I have no access to testing/renting lenses, since I live in a tiny town above the Arctic Circle in Greenland and rarely get to go to Europe or the States (about once a year to Europe - where the lens prices are just ridiculous anyway compared to shipping options from the US).

So I am having to rely on stuff like your great feedback - thanks!

[StanFoxworthy]

Hi Mads!

The beauty of the 16-35 II is that it is also weather sealed, along with not having to swap lenses in non-perfect environments, really cuts down on the chance of sensor contamination (per your comment on snowmobiling, BMX, etc.). If you can hold on to that and add the others as needed, you may find that you do indeed still use it.

Best of luck in your quest!

[tron]

I would get the TS-E 17 L and TS-E 24 L II. Well, Actually I do have them!
I prefer them even for standard landscape photography as my 16-35 L (version I) is not stellar at the edges.

[RLPhoto]

If I were to buy one Ultra-Wide lens that I know will out-resolve any future High megapixel bodies, will survive for years to come, and Give the absolute best re-sale value.

I'd get the Zeiss 15mm 2.8.

[dswatson83]

I love the 16-35mm. It is really a great lens.
And I definitely think you should go for the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 now that it is proving itself so quickly. That is a fast lens for under $1,000 with that level of build quality and sharpness. The reviews say it all:

http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review