Which one to get?

[Nate]

Hello,

I am going thru pretty big changes.

I am selling my 17-40 and 24-70 2.8L and planing to get a 17 TS-E and here is my problem.
The second would be or a 24L II or a 16-35L II.
So far I have used the 17-40 90% of the time and only 10% of the time the 24-70.

I would use mostly for landscapes and architecture, but since I have the 17 TS-E i am leaning toward the 24L.

I did not really try to shoot stars and the milky way, but I think the 2 stops of extra life would be a huge difference. I did not try this but for example I take two shots, one where I take like 10 minutes exposure for the foreground and then I take one at f/1.4 and expose the stars for 20 seconds. And like this I would avoid the trails.

Anyway, I am really interested which one has faster auto focus, and what are the advantages of one or the other besides that one is zoom and one is 2 stops faster?

Any other options I can have?

Thanks!

 

[bseitz234]

What FLs do you most often use your 17-40? That's an important starting point. 24L is going to have much better FF corners than 16-35 as well as the obvious aperture/FL differences...

 

[Random Orbits]

If it's between the 24L II or the 16-35L II, then I'd recommend the 24L II. Most people that shoot the stars do not recommend using the 24L II wide open because of the coma. The 16-35L II won't be able to be compete with the TS-E 17 or the 24L II, so what you'd be getting would be versatility up to 35mm. Getting a 35mm prime or the shorty-forty would do better than the 16-35L II at the long end but going the prime way will require carrying more lenses.

 

[RLPhoto]

The 24L II has a ridiculous amount of coma at the edges when shooting 1.4. You'll have to stop down anyway to prevent this.

 

[Nate]

How bad is the coma? And how much do I need to stop down?

 

[Nate]

Or should I go for the 28 1.8 and the 16-35 2.8 II?

 

[7enderbender]

Ever considered one of the wide-angle Zeiss lenses for that? Like the 21mm Distagon?

 

[iMagic]

I think I read somewhere that the Samyang 24mm 1.4 has better control over coma

 

[Random Orbits]

How bad is the coma? And how much do I need to stop down?

From most boards I've read, most use the 24L II at f/2.8 or smaller for astro.

 

[Mr Bean]

The 24L II has a ridiculous amount of coma at the edges when shooting 1.4. You'll have to stop down anyway to prevent this.

Yep. My journey for the past 6 months has been to find the perfect lens for night/star shots. Hence why I ended up in the land of Zeiss. The Zeiss 21mm is a great lens for this, although, I wanted something wider and the Zeiss 15mm was calling

Stopping down will reduce coma, but not eliminate it (unless you end up around f5.6). Considering most night shots need to be around f2.8 or faster, to me, the answer was to look for a lens that worked well at f2.8

For most other uses, the Canon 24mm f1.4 is a beautiful lens. A real joy to use

Try hiring and do some test pics before buying.

 

[Nate]

Ok, so far I think I will go with the 16-35 because:

As far as I understood, I can use more time at 16mm than at 24, so the 24 is not anymore 2 stops faster, but one. Plus as I saw in samples I can use the 16-35 II at 2.8 but cant use the 24 at 1.4.
Yes the Samyang 24 1.4 I couldn't really use it for other than landscapes/star shooting, because the lack of focus.

Any other lens recommended?