Swap 16-35 f2.8 II for 24 f1.4 II on 5D3

[tron]

I do have the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
It is very useful to get rid of these converging verticals if you are into architecture (including shooting archaelogical places). Up to now I have not used the tilt feature.
In addition it is very sharp with practically no vignetting.
So if someone has no need of very open apertures and does not care of AF the TS-E is much better value for money

Appreciate the recommendation for the TS Lens, I recognize that they are very good at what they do. As for the comment about "better value" I do not get it.

• The 24 f1.4 is $1600, the 24TS f3.5 is $2000.

• The 24TS f3.5 is very sharp with practically no vignetting, the 24 f1.4 shot at 3.5 is amazingly sharp with practically no vignetting.

I have the 24 f1.4 in hand at the moment and will be testing this weekend. Initial feel and few shots I took right out of the box at 11P last night were, very impressive to say the least.

After the unboxing last night I am still confident that the 24 f1.4 is going to end up replacing my 16-35 f2.8II; so much so that I already took the photos for the eBay listing of the 16-35 f2.8II. We shall soon see.

it all depends on whether you need the 24mm at 1.4 to 2 often (and in that cases it will not be extra sharp and without vignetting...) vs. the 24mm with the capability to correct converging verticals (this is my mostly used application), stiching, and tilting.

If your needs fall in the first case very well you have made the best choice. If your needs fall in the second case now or in the future you will have to pay 2000 in addition to the 1600 you paid now...

 

[tron]

I do have the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II
It is very useful to get rid of these converging verticals if you are into architecture (including shooting archaelogical places). Up to now I have not used the tilt feature.
In addition it is very sharp with practically no vignetting.
So if someone has no need of very open apertures and does not care of AF the TS-E is much better value for money

Appreciate the recommendation for the TS Lens, I recognize that they are very good at what they do. As for the comment about "better value" I do not get it.

• The 24 f1.4 is $1600, the 24TS f3.5 is $2000.

• The 24TS f3.5 is very sharp with practically no vignetting, the 24 f1.4 shot at 3.5 is amazingly sharp with practically no vignetting.

I have the 24 f1.4 in hand at the moment and will be testing this weekend. Initial feel and few shots I took right out of the box at 11P last night were, very impressive to say the least.

After the unboxing last night I am still confident that the 24 f1.4 is going to end up replacing my 16-35 f2.8II; so much so that I already took the photos for the eBay listing of the 16-35 f2.8II. We shall soon see.

it all depends on whether you need the 24mm at 1.4 to 2 often (and in that cases it will not be extra sharp and without vignetting...) vs. the 24mm with the capability to correct converging verticals (this is my mostly used application), stiching, and tilting.

If your needs fall in the first case very well you have made the best choice. If your needs fall in the second case now or in the future you will have to pay 2000 in addition to the 1600 you paid now...

That being said Iwould be interested in 24mm 1.4L II if it had less vignetting wide open (for astrophotography). I do not like the idea to have to correct that much vignetting in PP. Maybe the next (III) version...