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

I was doing that a lot, it's what motivated me to look into the 35 1.4

Here is a very crude comparison of the two just now in my kitchen. There was no tripod used, I put the timer on and braced the camera against the counter. I also had them at slightly different distances. It will give you a rough idea of how the two do side by side in similar conditions.

35mm

Thanks. Yes !, it does help a lot. I understand that both were shot WITHOUT flash. What was the aperture setting at both lenses ?

correct, no flash. both at f/4

I have the 16-35L and the 5D. There's only slight corner darkening at wide apertures. Compared with other lenses in the category, the 16-35L has relatively little vignetting in the corners.

Thanks. How about some early 16-35 models reportedly being too soft - not only at corners ? If these reports are true, is it possible that Canon had made some improvements, and that latter models are far sharper ?

i owned a 16-35 i returned it, i now have the 35 1.4. I much prefer the prime in every single way. I wasn't really blown away by the zoom for the money, the prime has done nothing but impress me.

Personally speaking, i'd get the prime. But then i only have primes so my input is pretty subjective, but i have had that zoom and i did not think it was worth the the money.

One problem is that so often the inquirer fails to give even a clue as to what format camera is being used.


If using a 1.6 crop factor format then I would think that the 16-35L would be the best choice given the variety of shots taken at indoor family events. BTW, I would kill for a 16-35L, so if you don't like the lens and want something killed...

Thanks. I have a cropped 1.6 camera.

Thanks 'Sean'. When returning the 16-35, did you think the 35 1.4 filled the Focal Length gap you had ? It is not exactly overlapping....

Well it's the widest i have now, and the 35 beats the zoom by that much of a margin (for me at least) that i don't miss the wide end at all. one thing is for sure, I've never thought twice about it.

Thanks for your insight & experience sharing ! One more good advise into the bag....

Just some thoughts to consider ...

when making your decision, keep in mind that the 35/1.4 L is supposed to be one of Canons sharpest primes, even wide open. The 24/1.4 L definitely not so .

'Is supposed to' means that I own neither. I'm just repeating what I read on the forum quite a number of times. My budget allowed me a Sigma 30/1.4 and this is a hell of a lens that makes me very happy. I also have been considering a Sigma 20/1.8, but this reportedly is one of the softer primes (not too surprising considering its width).

Best regards,
Andy

Andythaler wrote:
Just some thoughts to consider ...

when making your decision, keep in mind that the 35/1.4 L is supposed to be one of Canons sharpest primes, even wide open. The 24/1.4 L definitely not so .

'Is supposed to' means that I own neither. I'm just repeating what I read on the forum quite a number of times. My budget allowed me a Sigma 30/1.4 and this is a hell of a lens that makes me very happy. I also have been considering a Sigma 20/1.8, but this reportedly is one of the softer primes (not too surprising considering its width).

Best regards,
Andy

Thanks 'Andy'. Here's a re-enforcement.
A new review on the 24L at "photozone" from today:
http://www.photozone.d​e …ses/canon_24_14​/index.htm

Bottom line - better be off with its little sibling - the 24 f/2.8 ....

roli_bark wrote:
Thanks 'Andy'. Here's a re-enforcement.
A new review on the 24L at "photozone" from today:
http://www.photozone.d​e …ses/canon_24_14​/index.htm

Bottom line - better be off with its little sibling - the 24 f/2.8 ....

If you take the price into consideration, definitely.
In absolute terms, I think the lens tested shows great performance and sharpness (at least in the center).

As with my Sigma 30/1.4 that performs even a lot worse at the extreme border wide open, the question for me is how often you really need a picture that has edge-to-edge sharpness at f/1.4...

(Of course, the Sigma is 400$, while this lens is quite a lot more expensive... )

Best regards,
Andy