24L and 16-35L

want to buy something wider then my 35L, these two are my options, they are about the same price, i just want to hear what are your experiences with either lens, dont hold back, give me the pros and cons so it can help me decide

thank you .....

I had the 16-35 for quite a while and absolutely loved it. I would say go with the 16-35 just to get a little range especially considering the the difference between 24 and 35 isn't a whole lot for $1600. Have you considered a 17-40mm F/4 and a 28mm F/1.8? I would give you a sharp ultra wide and a fast focusing wide that works very well in low light.

^i tried the 17-40, im not a fan of that f4, so i traded that in for the 35L.
i need something fast and wide, so i was looking at these two options

Yea the F/4 makes me sad. Then again I had a weird moment the other day when I had to ask myself "when did F/2.8 become slow to me?" I would say go with the 16-35mm. You will love it.

i like to shoot a lot without flash, so the faster the better ^

What is it you are photographing?

The 16-35 is a wonderful lens, and it much wider than 24mm.
The 24mm is a faster lens and if you want to shoot in the low light without a flash, it will be better suited.

^ i usually shoot portraits, but i use my 35 and 135 combo for that, i just needed something a bit wide compared to my 35

Between your 5DIIs high ISO capabilities and f/2.8, I can't imagine you'll have much need for a faster lens. I doubt you'd want to try to isolate your subjects at that FL. From 24 to 16mm, there's such a massive difference and you can do so many cool things with it.

16-35 II all the way, IF you use flash. I like to use flash more than having to shoot with a fast wide. If you use it the right way (off camera flash, using triggers, directional flash, etc) you will get better, more diffused light, IMHO.

Neil,

I will be no help. I own both and I absolutely love both of them.

The people that do not own a 24Lmk2 (24L) cannot compare an f/1.4 wide angle prime lens photo to a 16-35Lmk2 f/2.8 photo.

Even though the 24L FL is not that far from a 35L there is a totally different look from the 24L. 35L is a real safe bet for less distortion and very NORMAL perspective. 24L will give you a much more unique look with subtle distortion depending on the distance of your subject.

The 16-35Lmk2 is an awesome lens. I love using it for events and when I want to keep it safe I use it at 35mm.

I'd suggest buying the 16-35L for versatility with UWA capabilities. Now that I own the 24Lmk2 I cannot ever see me getting rid of either lens. oh..... by the way I LOVE my 17-40L too. That lens IMO has better colours than the 35L and 24Lmk2. I was leary on buying the 16-35 fearing that the colours would not be as good as my 17-40L. Well I'll have to say the 16-35L mk2 produces beautiful colours just like the 17-40L.

I haven't had any experience with the 24L, but I did evaluate a 16-35 through CPS and I adored it - the only reason I haven't bought one is that I realized that I don't use the wide side quite enough to justify it. I picked up an oldie but goodie 17-35 2.8 instead.

If I used 16-35 focal length consistently, I'd buy a 16-35 without hesitation.

AlanU wrote in post #13993900
Neil,

I will be no help. I own both and I absolutely love both of them.

The people that do not own a 24Lmk2 (24L) cannot compare an f/1.4 wide angle prime lens photo to a 16-35Lmk2 f/2.8 photo.

Even though the 24L FL is not that far from a 35L there is a totally different look from the 24L. 35L is a real safe bet for less distortion and very NORMAL perspective. 24L will give you a much more unique look with subtle distortion depending on the distance of your subject.

The 16-35Lmk2 is an awesome lens. I love using it for events and when I want to keep it safe I use it at 35mm.

I'd suggest buying the 16-35L for versatility with UWA capabilities. Now that I own the 24Lmk2 I cannot ever see me getting rid of either lens. oh..... by the way I LOVE my 17-40L too. That lens IMO has better colours than the 35L and 24Lmk2. I was leary on buying the 16-35 fearing that the colours would not be as good as my 17-40L. Well I'll have to say the 16-35L mk2 produces beautiful colors just like the 17-40L.

you have some good points, i was thinking wide and fast for events and weddings i have lined up for the summer, im really torn between the f1.4 and f2.8, can a 24 cover events and weddings or would i need the UWA of a 16-35 ?

I have used both and I own the 24L II but I pair it with the 50 (which is a combo I love) Considering you have a 35L I would probably go 16-35. They are both very good lenses but if I had a 35 I would go with the zoom simply because its versatile and 24 is not that far from 35. Considering you shoot portraits you may also consider a 24-70 which would seem a bit more useful for portraits and still give you 24 2.8

Neil,

Please borrow or buy a 2nd body for wedding coverage. Even for events I think you should have a 2nd body to cover your ground especially with primes.

Your 35L will cover alot of ground with a FF. However all of your photos if framed the same will look the same with a 35L (perspective wise). Safety wise your photos will look similar to what most point and shoots will look like perspective wise. What I'm saying is kinda gonna stir up emotions. When I want to play is very safe with normal perspective I'll shoot my 35L. Your 35L you already own can be your fast semi wide angle prime.

With a 24L I need to be careful of distortion. The look you get with a 24L is very different compared to a 35L. I do like the files I get from a 24Lmk2. Ever since I tested a friends 24L I had to get one. This is after I've been shooting with a 35L for a long time. The 24L has a fresh look IMO. But just like anything your eye is different from other photogs.

Thing to consider is your style. When light is minimal and you already need to shoot with a flash for fill or even complete flash exposure this is when zooms kick ass. I try not to risk too shallow dof when groups of people need to be documented. f/2.8 with a zoom is plenty shallow with a 5dmk2.

I urge you to shoot with a 16-35Lmk2. The sharpness wideopen is extremely impressive with great contrast. I love how it renders everything. IQ wise its so much better than my fantastic workhorse 24-70L copy I have (just cant wait to see how the 24-70L mk2 performs..sure hope it produces on par performance of my 16-35Lmk2 IQ)

Neil I would suggest the 16-35Lmk2 first. Its versatile since you get a sweep of UWA to wide angle FL. f/2.8 on a 5dmk2 is totally doable with semi challenging light. If light gets that bad you should bounce flash anyways to prevent those washed out blaaaaa ambient/available light photos with inaccurate colours (especially in mixed light situations). f/2.8 and hitting with fill flash will get beautiful crisp photos. UWA in at the ceremony really tells the story especially when alot of people are attending. If your not allowed to use flash you have your 35L.

Neil B wrote in post #13993133
^ i usually shoot portraits

24LII, it's plenty wide for portrait. And I don't consider f2.8 fast whatsoever.