24mm 1.4 L - vs. - 16-35 2.8 L --> ?

Here's my dilemma.

The 16-35 2.8 is more versatile, however has some severe Vignetting reported wideopen.

The 24mm 1.4 is faster and reportedly better at 1-stop down, but less versatile. Needless to mention that the 24mm falls just about the middle of the 16-35 range....

I want to use either one in low-light, indoor family events. What do you think ?

i would tink that depending on the cam sensor size used, vignetting on the 16-35 might not be present with a 1.6x cropfactor. more likely that the image sharpness suffers a wee bit when wideopen.

The EF 24mm f/1.4L isn't all that brilliant. If you really NEED the large f/1.4 aperture then get it, otherwise you will be better off with the 16-35mm f/2.8L.

... or even a 24-70mm f/2.8L - one of Canon's absolute best zoom lenses.

Even compared to the 16-35 L [when both are at, say, stop f4] ?

Let's put it this way. If I have the light to use the EF 17-40mm f/4L I will always use it in preference to the EF 24mm f/1.4L. Many people regard the EF 17-40L and the EF 16-35L has having about the same quality optics.

if you shoot in available light (low) then by all means go for the 24, it's 2 stops faster.

Thanks. Yes. As I did mention at the start - shooting at low-light indoor, mainly people is my main need from either.
But I am still confused by contradictory views expressed here.

What contradictory views? What we're saying is that in ultra low light the f/1.4 aperture of the 24mm can't be beat... but if you've got enough light to use a smaller aperture then the 16-35mm or the 17-40L has better optics.

And if you are concerned about performance/$ ratio at all, then your choice becomes very simple: the 17-40, IMO the best "bang/buck" EF lzoom lens other than the 70-200 f4.

Incidentally, I support the opinion already expressed herein that the 17-40 and the 16-35 yield comparable IQ. Also my copy of the 24-70 was inferior to my 17-40 in every way other than, obviously, speed.

I used to have a 16-35, a very sharp copy thru the zoom range, but sold it for a fast prime. I found, I was at 35mm (I am FF) for 99% of the shots and that the 35mm 1.4 was faster and sharper. Most times I can zoom with my feet. If not I use a fast zoom.

I would say, if you can foot zoom, go 24L. It's nice to have a faster lens and sharper lens. By all means, the 16-35 was a cracker, but I love having the majority of my lenses f2 or faster. And my zooms 2.8 or faster. I must add that for my shooting style, 24 is about as wide as I want or need.

Thanks 'Dante King'. I see [from your sig] that you have your Primes Focal Lengths covered also by your Tamron Zoom. In what Photographic occasions you prefer using the Zoom over your Primes ?

man i used an assistant's 24 and LOVED it, but IMO not real practiacal for my use..

Although this question wasn't directed at me, I fall into this category as well. If it helps here is my reasoning... I use my zooms when I'm not sure if I'll be able to move around enough for my primes to give me enough flexibility.

The exception to this is of course when I want to be down in the 17mm range. Then I have no choice

solinger wrote:
... when I want to be down in the 17mm range. Then I have no choice

Thanks 'solinger' - have you ever tried your 17-40 indoor [at 35mm] without using a FLASH ?