35mm f/1.4 L to 16-35mm f/4 L

[meltimtiman]

Been reading the reviews of the 16-35mm f/4 L IS and it looks like its a winner, even better than the f/2.8 USM II. I have a 35mm f/1.4 and would like to trade it to the 16-35 f/4 L IS. I would love to have a wider angle lens to add to my arsenal

Question 1: Is that a wise decision?
Question 2: Do I keep the 35mm f/1.4 L lens and get a wide prime lens like the 14mm f/2.8L or 24 f/1.4L?

Would appreciate very much your comments and opinions.

Thanks and best regards from Manila Philippines

 

[jasonsim]

The 35mm f/1.4L is a different beast. It gets you the very narrow depth of field while keeping most of your subject in focus. The 16-35mm f/4L cannot make the same shallow depth of field.

You must decide if that is important you. If it is not, then the 16-35 f/4L IS is a great lens! It is sharp even in the corners. If you need wider than 35mm then, you need this or something else. The 14mm f/2.8L II is good, but might be too wide for all your needs. It cannot be used with a screw on filter either. If money is a factor, maybe consider a nice 17-40mm f/4L and keep your 35mm f/1.4L.

Ultimately, the choice is yours to make and what will better serve your needs.

Kind regards,
Jason S.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Been reading the reviews of the 16-35mm f/4 L IS and it looks like its a winner, even better than the f/2.8 USM II. I have a 35mm f/1.4 and would like to trade it to the 16-35 f/4 L IS. I would love to have a wider angle lens to add to my arsenal

Question 1: Is that a wise decision?
Question 2: Do I keep the 35mm f/1.4 L lens and get a wide prime lens like the 14mm f/2.8L or 24 f/1.4L?

Would appreciate very much your comments and opinions.

Thanks and best regards from Manila Philippines

I had the thought for a bit when I was trying to decide if I should spend the money put away for the 35/1.4 to buy the 16-35/4 IS instead. In the end I decided not to. Here's why:
1. The 35/1.4 has unique functions that none of my f/2.8 or f/4 zooms can deliver (shallow DoF, low-light ability, etc.)
2. On FF, 24mm is sufficiently wide and I have the 24-70 zoom for that.
3. When I need to go wider (rarely), I have the manual focus 14/2.8.

Here's why a 16-35/4 would have made sense:
1. If I needed to go wider than 24mm very often.
2. If I didn't EVER need fast lenses.
3. If I didn't have the 24-70 zoom.

So if you do have a 24-xx zoom then get the 14/2.8L
If you regularly shoot wide get the 16-35 in addition to your prime
If you regularly shoot wide and rarely shoot in low light or need the shallow DoF, get the 16-35 and sell the 35
I can't comment on the usefulness of a 24/1.4. I don't see any but many people do. They'd probably be of more help there.

 

[Random Orbits]

Depends on what other lenses you have and how you use the 35L now. I'm inferring that you don't have any wide angle options or a 24-xx zoom because you're considering a 24L. The 16-35 f/4 IS is a great walk around and landscape lens. If you think the 35L will still be used if you get the 16-35 (i.e. specifically for indoors), then I'd suggest keeping the 35L and getting the 16-35 in addition to it.

The 16-35 is a lot more versatile and useful to more people than either the 14L II or the 24L II alone. I'd suggest picking up the 16-35 f/4 IS first and seeing how you use your lenses. Then you can best decide what to do with your 35L: whether or not you would prefer to keep it or trade it for a 14 or 24.

 

[Ruined]

Been reading the reviews of the 16-35mm f/4 L IS and it looks like its a winner, even better than the f/2.8 USM II. I have a 35mm f/1.4 and would like to trade it to the 16-35 f/4 L IS. I would love to have a wider angle lens to add to my arsenal

Question 1: Is that a wise decision?
Question 2: Do I keep the 35mm f/1.4 L lens and get a wide prime lens like the 14mm f/2.8L or 24 f/1.4L?

Would appreciate very much your comments and opinions.

Thanks and best regards from Manila Philippines

Hi,
As these lenses are totally different and have totally different strengths/weaknesses, it is impossible to answer your question without knowing what you primarily take pictures of. I also am assuming you have a full frame camera (1D to 5D) in the below discussion; if you have a crop camera (7D, xxD - xxxD or Rebel) I'd recommend a whole different set of lenses than I did below due to FOV and other differences.

For instance, if you are taking pictures of moving people indoors (such as kids or an event), the 35mm f/1.4L or 24mm f/1.4L II will be *MUCH* more useful that the 16-35mm f/4 IS. Image stabilization cannot avoid motion blur, and the f/4L IS means you will likely have to settle for high ISO indoors (noisy + poor contrast) when taking pictures of moving people in order to keep the shutter speed high enough to avoid motion blur. You also have significantly less subject isolation capability with f/4 vs. f/1.4, another potential disadvantage when shooting people.

On the other hand, the 16-35mm f/4 IS can do 16-23mm which the 24L cannot, and it has the flexibility of a zoom. If you were to take either lens hiking to do some landscape work, the 16-35mm f/4L IS would easily be a better choice. 16mm is usable for people but it is more of specialty use that you would use sparingly, less so than 24mm-35mm which have less perspective distortion and wider apertures available in lenses.

So in summary:
-If you do mostly landscapes, I would say: get the 16-35mm f/4L IS, sell the 35mm f/1.4L. For strictly landscapes, the 16-35mm f/4L IS is a hard lens to beat right now.

-If you do mostly people, I would say: keep the 35mm f/1.4L or sell it and buy the 24mm f/1.4L II if you want something a bit wider - just keep in mind you have to be more careful framing with 24mm than 35mm to avoid perspective distortion, and if 24mm f/1.4L is your only lens under 60mm you will be cropping quite a lot. If definitely want a 16-35mm zoom for people, the 16-35mm f/2.8L II is better than the 16-35mm f/4L IS for this purpose despite its disadvantages (which are really only an issue for landscape work, and f/2.8 is often needed for people photography). Another option for mostly people photography is selling the 35L and buying the 24L II + 50L (I have this fantastic combo). Either way, if people are your primary subjects I do not feel the 16-35mm f/4 IS is a wise choice.

-If you do both people and landscapes equally, I would say as the best option of all: sell the 35L. Buy the 16-35mm f/4L IS for landscapes, and the 50mm f/1.2L for people. That would be a heck of a combo if you could afford it, and the best option IMO as it will cover most your bases in landscape and people. You'd essentially have Canon's best landscape lens and near-best portrait lens - plus 16mm-50mm focal lengths covered.

 

[SoullessPolack]

I haven't read the other replies, but here's my opinion because I have both lenses and also considered the same options.

My first love is landscape photography, so that was the reason why I wanted to buy the 16-35 f4. Absolutely superb lens. I was thinking the same thing, possibly trading the Sigma 35.

However, I also occasionally do people/street photography for a couple of organizations I am with. I really enjoy the look the lens gives me. Hard to describe, but there is quite a bit of so called "pop" from it, and I don't even shoot it wide open that much. It's also nice to have around in low light. The f4 can sort of fill that role due to the IS, but not all the time depending on movement.

The other thing that led me to keeping the f1.4 is for landscapes at night. This thing rocks for stars if you use 35mm for landscapes. This use is rare, but I have gotten a few keepers that way that I wouldn't have been able to get with the f4. F4 at 35mm would have resulted in star trails, or excessive noise.

 

[takesome1]

The 35mm f/1.4L is a different beast. It gets you the very narrow depth of field while keeping most of your subject in focus. The 16-35mm f/4L cannot make the same shallow depth of field.

I think you summed up the major consideration.

I would add that the value and benefit of the 35 f/1.4 L decreases if a crop body is used.

On a FF body it is a very unique lens that gives you very specific feel. The zoom and the prime at the same apertures would give quality IQ with the results of a common lens of high quality.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Been reading the reviews of the 16-35mm f/4 L IS and it looks like its a winner, even better than the f/2.8 USM II. I have a 35mm f/1.4 and would like to trade it to the 16-35 f/4 L IS. I would love to have a wider angle lens to add to my arsenal

Question 1: Is that a wise decision?
Question 2: Do I keep the 35mm f/1.4 L lens and get a wide prime lens like the 14mm f/2.8L or 24 f/1.4L?

Would appreciate very much your comments and opinions.

Thanks and best regards from Manila Philippines

Trade it only if you don't need the extra stops. I own a 35mm f2IS that I use in low light conditions and street photo and the 16-35 f4LIS for architecture and landscape where it shines. Both remains in my bag specially for travel, sharing time with my 24-70 f2.8L

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I regularly swap between them, I use a 16-35 for a wider view on the world. But the 35 f1.4L is my preferred "weapon of choice". I prefer the look I get from it's images than I do from the the f2.8 at the long end

 

[CHL]

I have just been arguing with myself about the same question. I have now ordered the 16-35/4 and sold the 35/1.4 and the 17-40/4 (the latter was the easy part...quite obvious). I agree, the 35/1 is a special lens but for my type of photography I rarely use 1.4 so I use the 40/2.8 instead. It is small (fits in your pocket), sharp and does not cost a fortune. Good for street photography.

/Claes