24L, 35L or 28f1.8

Non L Prime lense RULE. You dont need a L Prime to have sharp image

i cant afford the 24L. I cant afford the 35L. so what am I left with?? a Non-L. is it worth to get the 28 f1.8, or am I better of stop thinking/dreaming about Prime lense?!?!

i don't get your post. so you don't want L primes but you don't know if you should get a non-L prime?

the 28 looks like it'll go well with your 50 and 85 primes. i'd say go for it.

Unless you have a specific use for the 28mm f/1.8, I'd probably skip it because you have the 16-35LII. There's only a 1 1/3 stop difference between the two lenses, which is not usually enough for me to sacrifice the versatility of the L zoom for the prime.

Having said that, I have the 16-35L and the 28mm f/1.8. I've also owned the 35L and 24LII. I chose to sell of the L primes and in the end go with the 28/1.8 because of it's small size and accurate AF. I use it specifically for street and photojournalism and find the 35L to be too close to my 50/1.4 in FL and 24LII was too big and (oddly enough) not as good at locking AF in very low light as the 28. It's not the sharpest tool in the box, but it is more than usable from wide open. It really shines on FF imo.

Good luck in your decision.

Or you can get L quality without breaking the bank. $20 adapter and a $90 Nikkor-S 50mm f1.4 of vintage years, just learn to manually focus.

If you have a need for that focal length and need something a little faster than your 16-35 then I think it would be a decent choice. Maybe not quite equal to the two L's you mentioned but they aren't options at this point for you anyway. I looked at the 28 1.8 when I ended up purchasing the 35L and it's not a bad lens at all. There aren't a lot of other options that will fit both of your bodies.

sigma... they have 20, 24, 28mm in f1.8

banpreso wrote in post #12665740
sigma... they have 20, 24, 28mm in f1.8

I thought about those too, but every lens the OP owns is Canon so I wasn't sure if they were willing to consider a third party lens.