Which to get next: 35 f/1.4L or 16-35 f/2.8L...?

[canon23]

Hi everyone again. Now that I've received responses on your feed back on picking the 16-35 over the 17-40 from my previous post, I am in need of your input again. Here's my situation.

I shoot w/the 5D Mark II (griped) w/the 430EX
Other lenses I have now are: 1) 70-200 f/2.8 II 2) 24-105 f/4 3) 50 f/1.8 II

I assist with weddings/events, and shoot portraits. I also shoot often on trips and vacations.

Which lens should I get next to better suit my needs:
1) 35 f/1.4 or
2) 16-25 f/2.8
or
3) some other lens you would recommend?

I can only get one for now.

Thanks again for your help!

 

[Random Orbits]

If your kit satisfies your current work needs, then I'd suggest going for the 16-35 for trips and vacations. Sometimes 24mm just is not wide enough.

 

[Deleted member 42026]

Depends if you need the versatility of the 16-35 zoom. The widest you have is 24mm at the moment, right? 16mm is massively wider if that appeals.

Other than that, Im sure the 35mmL would kick the so and so's out of even a perfectly good 24-105mm in image quality plus if you need a fast lens for any reasons more than you need ultra wide, then well... thats the pick.

I've used a 16-35mm f2.8 ii, its great, it really is... even on crop. However after testing a 35mmL, wow. If you like out of focus areas, thats the one and no contest.

 

[Menace]

Looking at your current lenses, i'd suggest a fast prime like the excellent 35L to cover your low light needs.

Currently for myself, i'm trying to decide between the 35L and 50L but leaning towards the 35L

Cheers

 

[risc32]

i would recommend the 16-35mm. the 35 is probably very nice, but you have that range well covered, so it'd basically just be what you have, 35mm, only faster. I really don't know why people talk about out of focus areas and 35mm at the same time. your 50mm, and 70-200mm are far better at throwing things out of focus than any 35mm. heck, you're 24-105 might do more as well. the 16-35mm will get you things you can't possibly get with your current gear. not just the same basic look with better IQ(the 35mm), but entirely different things.

actually though, if my main concern was trips, portraits and assisting weddings/events i probably wouldn't recommend anything given what you already have. you look good to me.

 

[TriGGy]

Canon23: I suggest the 16-35 II, it will allow you more creativity with some shots (more wide view of the interior the church, tight group pictures - albeit distorted, etc.).

Try to find out if the notion that the 16-35II gets soft within 24-35mm is true... I had the lens before but returned it due to financial reasons, so I had not really tried the longer end much.

I am more like you at the start of my lens collection - I'm looking ahead between the 70-200mm II and the new 24-70 II, but since I have the 50mm 1.8 II I'm more likely leaning towards the telephoto range than standard or ultra wide.

 

[ronderick]

You probably want to cover the wide end first.

The 16-35mm is a good choice when it comes to group picture at weddings. Also, the lens's versatility is useful for landscape shots.

 

[preppyak]

I guess it depends on whether your wedding/portrait stuff is paid or not. If it is, then I'd get the 35L, because right now, if you get a church ceremony with no flash, you're basically stuck with only one low-light prime. You'd have to go pretty high ISO with the other lenses.

The 16-35 will be better for landscapes and travel, but, it leaves you basically all at f/2.8. And, depending how how much you travel with just the 24-105, I might even consider swapping that for another prime (85mm, 135, etc).

 

[RS2021]

Looking at the lens kit you already have, what is missing is the ultra wide range, so the simple answer is 16-35II. While 35L is a great lens, it really will not add much to your kit unless you are an avid street photographer or similar mid-range work or low light indoors person that will benefit from the added stops. 16-35 II is good on both FF and crop and covers a great UWA or WA range.

In spite of moments of puritanical wish to stick to primes, I have come to grudgingly admit that in practical terms, professional quality zooms are more versatile.

 

[Schruminator]

If you anticipate shooting in low lighting, the 35L is stupid fast with stunning picture quality. However, like the above posters have said-- it looks like you've pretty much gotten that focal length covered. I'd lean towards something wider than the 35L to complement your current lenses.

 

[NWPhil]

if you want UWA and WA get the 35L and the samyang/rokinon 14mm for the price of the 16-35

 

[pasghik]

Well, I will be against a crowd in a second, but I will say it.
I have 35L and it is barely usable at 1.4. Everything out of the center is a total mess. It is better to use it at least @f/2.0 or 2.8. But then there is almost no advantage against other lenses.

In addition, if you have 5dmk2, for portraits you will probably have to focus with outer points - forget about 35L.
You will mix bad sharpness combined with very unprecise AF.

I am a hobby photographer. But I'd try Tokina 16-28 f/2,8.
It must be sharper than Canon 16-35.

 

[MK5GTI]

if the OP decide to go 35L, i suggest you wait for the Sigma 35mm F1.4 just announced at photokina.

i love their 30mm F1.4 when i shoot crop, hoping the Sigma 35 will beat the 35L ? ;D

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I prefer my 35mmL over my 16-35mm L, but I have not yet used the 16-35 a lot.

 

[RS2021]

Well, I will be against a crowd in a second, but I will say it.
I have 35L and it is barely usable at 1.4. Everything out of the center is a total mess. It is better to use it at least @f/2.0 or 2.8. But then there is almost no advantage against other lenses.

+1.
Actually most of us will agree that with 35L wide open, the corners and borders are noticably soft. One nice way of putting it would be it has a "dreamy" look (wink wink) in the corners and border. It is still a great lens for street photography and low light indoor events if you don't pixel peep at the border and corners on a FF. Remember this is an ageing lens that did wonders where speed in low light situations was a bottleneck....before the insane high ISO era.

The 16-35 II L is a reworked second version that at least Canon claims has better IQ across the frame including the borders/edges. My general sense is (not doing any high end comparison) that there is a bit of improvement in fact. But 16-35 II L does get pretty sharp by f/3.2 and higher and as a UWA lens (landscape situtations etc) one is not looking at lower f stops typically. by f/4 or f/5.6 it is a superb lens for the purpose it was designed.

I have owned the 35L since its introduction. It is neither small nor light, but it is a solid L lens. It was my first L prime and there is a bit of sentimental attachment as to why it still remains in my collection. But in all fairness, it rarely gets much camera time anymore.

 

[AudioGlenn]

Looking back at my purchases, IF (and that's a big if) I wasn't doing any video at all, I would've opted for the 16-35L over my 35L. But i absolutely LOVE the 35 L when I shoot videos. Yes, I use it at f/1.4-2.0 for video and it looks gorgeous. As a walk around, on the rare occasion when I switch out my 24-105 for the 35L, I use it at f/1.8-2.0 without flash and it does a decent job, but I'm realizing more and more that primes, awesome as they are, aren't really well suited for my style of shooting. It's a pain to have to switch between my 35 and my 50 when I'm walking around so 90% of the time, I just keep the 24-105 on. This might change as I just got my 70-200 yesterday and have fallen in love with it.

to sum up: I like primes for video shoots when I have time to set up one lens and one shot. Lots of fun playing with manual focus. I'd prefer an f/2.8 zoom for photography and it seems like you're lacking in the wide angle area so I 2nd that notion.