ef16-35l/Sigma 35 1.4/ ef17-40l

Ok here's my problem. I'm a portrait photographer and currently own the ef 50.14, and 135l. I just sold my 24-70 2.8l and I want to have a focal length to cover wider then 50mm. I have enough in my budget to either go with the 16-35, 17-40, or the 35 prime.

My main question is I also get real estate gigs usually in the spring through summer months. Which leads me to think the 16-35 or 17-40 is a better choice and if I do go for the 17-40 I could also pick up a 85mm1.8.

So what the hell should I do here? Can the 16-35 be used and perform well as a portrait lens? I know for real estate it is more then capable.

Is the 17-40 ok to use in portrait situations, or is the 16-35 a better all around lens.

Or should I go 17-40 and also pick up a 85 1.8?

Thoughts?

24 TS-E!

Sounds like from your requirements (and looking at your flickr) the 16-35 II would probably the best bet. 2.8 will let you get a bit creative with DOF as opposed to f/4.

BrandonSi wrote in post #15497271
24 TS-E!

Sounds like from your requirements (and looking at your flickr) the 16-35 II would probably the best bet. 2.8 will let you get a bit creative with DOF as opposed to f/4.

Thanks Brandon.

My vote goes to the 16-35 II as well !

As a close-up portrait lens, the 16-35mm will be horrible. At least in my opinion. There is too much distortion for my liking. However, if you're doing more of a landscape-portrait style photo, then that's a different story. Based on the samples I've seen, I'd probably use the 35mm 1.4 as a portrait lens rather than the 16-35.

protege wrote in post #15497508
As a close-up portrait lens, the 16-35mm will be horrible. At least in my opinion. There is too much distortion for my liking. However, if you're doing more of a landscape-portrait style photo, then that's a different story. Based on the samples I've seen, I'd probably use the 35mm 1.4 as a portrait lens rather than the 16-35.

Hrm.. That's strange, I found distortion at 35mm (on the 16-35 II) to be almost negligible. Certainly within the limits of the 'check the little box in LR and don't worry about it further' technique. Of course 35mm close up is a somewhat unusual way to shoot a portrait, at least for me, so I'll admit I don't have a lot of examples to point to. IMO, it should be just fine for full body or even 3/4 length.

Unless you need 2.8, go with the 17-40.

I have to say, as a 16-35 owner, I am not blown away by this lens as much as I thought I would have been.

I tested both the 17-40 and the 16-35 at the time of purchase, and I thought I needed that extra 1mm and faster glass...but I am not so sure I would do it again.

I will suggest to pick the 17-40 and a 85 1.8 to complete your focal range