Canon 16-35mm f4 IS @ f4 versus Canon 35mm f1.4 @ f4

How does the sharpness campare? Is the prime that much better?

I will await a comparison myself out of curiosity and subscribe.
But to me these two lens are completely different tools that fill different needs.
Unless you only seek to solely use that lens at 35mm f4.0 then more power to you.

Whether one is marginally sharper than the other at that one setting:
The 35L can't do 16-34mm of course, and the 16-35 can't open wider than f4.0

Choose the lens that best suits your overall needs, then save up for the other if you want both.

Hm... Whant an interesting question.
L-prime stopped down three stops or L-zoom with IS wide open?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

I would rather have IS than f1.4, but I dont want to sacrifice lens sharpnes either. So if the 16-35mm F4 can give the 35mm f1.4 a run for its money in sharpness, then the 16-35 is for me. But if the 16-35mm is mushy by comparison, then the prime will be my choice.

It all depends on what you want to use it for.

Personally, I think the 16-35's main feature is it's ultrawide focal length, the 35mm is just a bonus. The 34mm f1.4 is fast, that's why you buy that one.

vertigo235 wrote in post #17020501
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

Thanx. If my eyes are seeing correctly, the 16-35mm f4 IS is sharper @ f4. We have a winner!

Looks a wash to me but it's certainly close enough to call it either way I guess.

One thing is certain though, and probably not much of a surprise to anyone.

If you plan to shoot all your 35mm shots at f4 and above, then the 16-35 F4 IS is the lens for you!

texshooter wrote in post #17020887
Thanx. If my eyes are seeing correctly, the 16-35mm f4 IS is sharper @ f4. We have a winner!

in the center maybe... but corner sharpness on the 16-35 isn't impressing me.

Corners are not so great on the 16-35mm

va_rider wrote in post #17020944
in the center maybe... but corner sharpness on the 16-35 isn't impressing me.

And, if you believe TDP, the 35 f/2 IS beats them both on the corners and mid-frame. And it's at least as good as both in the center:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

Eastport wrote in post #17021022
And, if you believe TDP, the 35 f/2 IS beats them both on the corners and mid-frame. And it's at least as good as both in the center:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=4​&APIComp=0

That's shocking. Why would Canon charge 2.5X more for the 35mm f1.4 when the 35mm f2.0 is much sharper, plus you get IS. I guess that extra stop alone is worth $900 more to some. Not to me.

Not to be a jack-hole, but if sharpness at f/4 is your deciding factor between these two *very* different tools, I'd say that there's a good chance that you don't know what you want and it might be a good idea to wait until experience brings you a little more clarity.

I own both. The 16-35 f/4 IS appears to be as sharp as my 35 L at F/4 but I did not do extensive pixel peeking. As already noted, these are different lenses; fast primes that can shoot at f/1.4 are useful tools. If f/4 is all you need, buy the 16-35.