Wide angle lens on a Full Frame - need help

[Autocall]

Just a little survey to help me decide.
I personally prefer the 24mm which would permit more background blur should I need to shoot close (art or fun) portraits.
But I'm seriously considering the 16-35 instead which has a pretty nice aperture too..
What lens would you choose as a gift?

[Random Orbits]

If you already have a fast prime for low light sutations, then I'd suggest the 16-35.  Covering the 16-35 focal length range with primes costs a lot more than the 16-35 (14, 17, 24, 35).

[IIIHobbs]

I have the 16-35, so that is my vote. I have seen results from the 24 (wow), but have not had opportunity to use it myself.

[drjlo]

Strong vote for TS-E 24mm II, perhaps the best lens Canon makes IMO.  It's a phenomenal lens, even before the tilt/shift consideration, and I own others like 85L II. 

[Dylan777]

I'm not sure 24mm L is best for portrait for FF. You really need get close to your subject to get that blur.

For wide angle - I like 16-35 II a lot.

[TrumpetPower!]

If you'll be using it primarily on a tripod, it's no question: the TS-E 24 II.

If this is primarily for people, the 35 f/1.4 is probably what you're looking for...24 is getting a bit wide.

If this is for dramatic shots of who-knows-what, then the 16-35. Just remember that this is one lens that really only works (creatively) at close working distances. (But the TS-E does even better at close working distances, and is superlative at sweeping distant vistas as well.)

Not to knock the 24 f/1.4, but that's one of those lenses that, if you don't know exactly what you'd use it for, it's unlikely that it's worth spending money on. Of course, if you do know what you'd use it for, no other lens will do....

Cheers,

b&

[iaind]

I have the predecessors 17-35L and 24TSE and find both equally useful