Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 04 Mar 2014 (Tuesday) 15:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 24 f/1.4 II vs. 16-35 II

178 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Apr 2010
Mar 04, 2014 15:08 |  #1

Hello all,

I'm on the edge of buying a lens.
It is going to be either Canon 24mm f/1.4 II or Canon 16-35mm II.
In addition, I'm adding the 50L at the same time.
I am planning to sell 24-70 ver.I and 35 f/2 IS.
My current set up is 24-70L Ver. I, 35 f/2 IS, 100L and 135L.
I have 5D Mark II.
I do both landscape and portrait work.
24 can do both landscape and some portraits, however not as wide as the 16-35 when it comes to landscape.
I also like the low light capablity of the 24L II.
For 16-35 II, I like the fact that it could be a really good landscape lens and has a reach to 35mm for versatility, but not too sure about for portrait use.
I used to own 17-40L, so I know how 16mm will feel like.
If you were me which set up would you choose to go with??

1. 24L II, 50L, 100L, 135L
2. 16-35L II, 50L, 100L, 135L
3. Keep the current set up and just add 50L

Please feel free to provide other suggestions.
Thank you all for your inputs in advance!

Sony A7
FE 55mm 1.8

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Senior Member
684 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 44
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
Mar 04, 2014 17:12 |  #2

Samyang 14mm 2.8
24L II
85L II
That's all you need.

Nikon Df, D810 - 50mm f1.8G Special Edition (Black), 14-24mm f2.8G, 85mm f1.4G, 200mm f2G VR II, 300mm f2.8G VR II
5D Mark IV - TS-E 17mm f4L, 14-24mm f2.8 ART, 50mm f1.4 ART, 105mm f1.4 ART
Fujifilm X100f, X-T2, X-H1 Grip, XF 10-24, XF 23 1.4. Sony A9 is calling my name.

241 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boerne, TX
Mar 04, 2014 17:22 |  #3


Or you can substitute the 50L for the 85L :)

5DIII, 24L f/1.4 II, 70-200L f/2.8 IS II, 

Senior Member
536 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2008
Location: South Australia
Mar 04, 2014 17:38 |  #4

i am with Myduc,
I have lots of L primes but just not the 50L for now.

since you do portrait, get the 85.
if you doing landscape with people in them, get the 24LII. (24 has a edge distortion and if you use it to your advantage, then perfect)
if you dont want distortion and want to keep people at the side of the frame, your 35 is good.
i have no experience with the 16-35LII but uses a tokina 11-16 with crop body. Just dont have the like for 16mm at this stage.

AIPP Accredited (Australia), WPJA
Professional Wedding, Newborn and Family Photographer
https://www.scottgohph​ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/ScottGohPhotography (external link)
https://www.scottgohph​ (external link)
https://www.scottgohph​​s-and-children/ (external link)

Senior Member
775 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
Mar 04, 2014 17:51 |  #5

Focus your analysis on the 16-35L II's image quality (or lack there of). It's the sharpest Canon UWA option in this focal length, but, it doesn't stack very well against Nikon's or the Tokina. More than once I've been told to save money and not buy the 16-35L unless I really need to shoot f/2.8 all the time.

In my case I stuck with the 17-40L and bought the Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8 for fun.

As for the 50L: it's nice, but, could be better. I'm seriously wondering if the new Sigma 50mm Art lens will turn out to be the better choice.

For portrait work, I love the 85L II with 135L, but, if you stop down all the time for deeper DOF anyway, the 100L works.

As for the 24L, it's good for a 24mm prime. I personally like the UWA zoom for the focal length flexibility over the 24L. For landscape, I would use a tripod and stop down the UWA zoom. If I really cared about edge-to-edge image quality, I'm headed for the Zeiss 21mm or save up for a 24mm TS-E II.

EOS-M | 40D | 5DII | 5DIII | EF-M 22 | EF-M 18-55 | 10-22 | 17-55 | 17-40L | 24-70L mk II | 24-105L | 70-200/2.8L IS mk II| 35L | 85L II |35/2 | 40/2.8 pancake | 50/1.8 | 50/1.4 | 100/2 | Rokinon 14/2.8 | 90 EX | 270 EX II | 580 EXII | 600 EX-RT

70 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: seattle
Mar 04, 2014 23:17 |  #6

I have the older 16-35 and have used the new one too.
The 24 1.4 is from another planet it's WAY better ( for me ) and I'm soo glad I got it
I'd avoid zooms of you can except for the 70-200
Just my 2 cents tho it really depends on needs

1D3, 5D3, 70-200 2.8 is ii,16-35 2.8 ,24 1.4 ii ,50 1.2,85 1.2 ii,135 2.0, 300 2.8is, hasselblad stuff, Profoto stuff, some other stuff, I sure do like stuff

Senior Member
275 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2013
Mar 05, 2014 00:19 |  #7

1. 24L II, 50L, 100L, 135L
I alr have 100L, the other 3 in my wish list!

6D, 100L,24-70 F4L, 40mm pancake, 70-300L
Carl Zeiss MP 50​photos/tat3406/ (external link)

Senior Member
407 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Apr 2006
Mar 05, 2014 00:31 |  #8

Another vote for the 24L. It's way more versatile in it's ability to do both landscape and portrait with exceptionally high quality, and under very low light conditions. Plus the unique look of photos at F1.4 cannot be duplicated by any of the F2.8 zooms in the Canon lineup.

Berg | Imagery (external link)

ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
23,064 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 417
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
Mar 05, 2014 02:36 as a reply to  @ bberg's post |  #9

I have to have 16mm for landscape. 24mm prime no matter how fantastic will never give you 16mm but the 16-35L II also does 24mm.

there really is no substitute for an UW zoom for most photographers.​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
Mar 05, 2014 04:18 |  #10

ed rader wrote in post #16735539 (external link)
I have to have 16mm for landscape. 24mm prime no matter how fantastic will never give you 16mm but the 16-35L II also does 24mm.

there really is no substitute for an UW zoom for most photographers.

Sure, but not everyone is looking for a 16mm FOV. To me it was very handy in times while travelling (for example standing in front of the biggest building, burj khalifa in dubai). But usually to me 24mm is quite wide enough for most things...

Now someone can choose between versatility (16-35) vs low light (24L) vs functionality for special purposes (TS-E 17 or 24)

Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

Cream of the Crop
5,284 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Mar 05, 2014 08:25 as a reply to  @ davidfarina's post |  #11

I'm going through a similar debate. I sold off my zooms awhile ago and went all primes, but my widest lens at the moment is the Sigma 35, and I need something a bit wider.

I currently have:

Sigma 35 Art
Canon 50 1.4 (to be replaced by the Sigma 50 Art when available)
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 135L

I've owned the 16-35II and the 24L I in the past...loved them both, just not sure which one I really want to fill out the wide end of my lens range. Ultimate sharpness is less of a priority than the creative options that the lens would make available to me. The 24 @ 1.4 does produce a very unique look that I like, and 24mm is reasonably wide for producing some good perspective distortion or shooting in tight spaces. That said, I really love what 16mm can do for compositional possibility...creative use of distortion and playing with foreground subjects. What's unfortunate is that while the IQ of the 16-35 II is quite good at 16mm and 35mm, it is particularly poor in the middle of the zoom range around 24mm, which I think is a fairly significant knock to the versatility of the lens.

This is kind of how I see it:

24L II
Pros: outstanding IQ, good corner sharpness, unique look for environmental portraits at f/1.4
Cons: Lacks the wow factor of a UWA, you may miss having 35mm which is a great focal length for environmental portraits (though you can shoot 24mm and crop).

16-35L II
Pros: Very good center sharpness at 16mm and 35mm, usable for environmental portraits, creative possibilities of 16mm for distortion and foreground subjects
Cons: IQ at 24mm, softness in corners not ideal for landscapes

I think I'm going to pick up a 16-35 II from a friend and play with it for awhile. The clincher for me I think is am I going to be able to live with the 16-35 II @ 24mm and how big of a deal that is for me.

Drew A. | gear | photosexternal link

Cream of the Crop
5,599 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 475
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
Mar 05, 2014 08:41 |  #12

I have 24L II, 50L, 100L, 135L so that gets my vote but many lens combos can work for your use. I like this combo with a 17-40 for landscapes. While the 24L is outstanding I usually prefer a zoom for landscapes. I would honestly prefer a 16-35 but the larger filters, price and from what I can tell its not much of an upgrade to the 17-40 kept me away.

If your not opposed to a zoom you may want to consider the 24-70 2.8 II. Many people seem very happy with it. But there is no reason your current setup should not work for what you do. Maybe just add an UW for landscapes.

Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

Senior Member
864 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 210
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Pécs, Hungary
Mar 05, 2014 08:49 |  #13

I would not sell the 24-70, as it is really versatila, and a very nice walk-around lens.
Just add the lens you need most.

Roland | Hobbyst Photographer
Nikon D850 | Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II | Nikon 85mm f/1.8G | Nikon 35mm f/1.8G

178 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Apr 2010
Mar 05, 2014 10:35 |  #14

Thank you all for your inputs!!

Sony A7
FE 55mm 1.8

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,020 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 24 f/1.4 II vs. 16-35 II
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©

Latest registered member is masoudyas
962 guests, 347 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.