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

If you want a Canon L at 1.4, go with the 35. That lens really can't be beat for those shorter focal length.

Thanks 'grego'.
But then again, on a cropped camera the 35mm is way to narrow.

24 is still narrow though.

I agree that 24 is still narrow and from the mtf charts and user comments am not impressed with the 24L. I appreciate the wider 16-35L and use it at events as weddings, receptionns, parties, family get togethers, etc. Very good results, sharp as can be, and VERY versatile. It is sharper than the two 24-70L s that I returned.

Thanks 'cc10d'. According to your 16-35 experience, is fast enough for shooting indoor people without a Flash ?

Yes, in some cases. It's always dependent upon the situation and how lit it is. Sometimes its even too dark at 1.4.

grego is right. In good lighting it works well, more moderate light one needs to go to higher ISO to get the shutter speeds up to handheld use. High ISO = more noise. Post processing can lower that but low light pictures are always a challenge and a trade off in what technique to use. The 1.4 gets you a bit faster shutter to keep camera shake or action less blurry. But the depth of field gets less also. If the light gets too low, I usually opt for the flash if practicle. (regardless of lens) learning different ways of flash use is a very interesting pursuit in itself. Fill, partial, bounce, diffuser, etc. etc. I feel the added vesitility of the zoom is worth its use. I have had a 20mm prime, but used it little in comparison to how much I use the 16-35.