I hate to ask, but I'm in a lens quandry...[16-35L vs. 24L/35L}

As the title suggests, I hate to ask for advice or a push in the right direction, but I'm really stuck between my wants and needs. After last years wedding season winded down I sold off alot of my faster glass (17-55 IS, 24-70L, 35mm F/2 etc) for two reasons: 1. I didn't think I'd be shooting any weddings for 2009 (I was wrong), and 2. I really wanted to simplify and streamline my kit (which is still something I strive for).

Right now I'm rockin' 2 x 30D, 17-40 F/4L, 100mm F/2.8 Macro, 70-200 F/2.8 IS. 580 EX, 430EX. It is a far cry from a perfect kit. I'm pretty content with the speed of the telephoto but my concern is with the slowness of the wide end. The main reason I'm thinking about the speed issue is that I've been hit with a number of wedding inquiries lately, I'll need to get something faster as F/4 just won't cut it.

For pay I shoot stock, some editorial/PJ/Commercia​l work (I want more of this), and weddings. For my own enjoyment (and the occassional print sale) I shoot landscapes, abstracts, etc.

My quandry is whether I should replace my 17-40 (which is my favorite lens btw) with a 16-35mm F/2.8L, or compliment it with a fast prime, either the 24mm F/1.4L or 35mm F/1.4L?

The 16-35 would be very versatile and a direct faster replacement for my trusty 17-40. Downside is that it's expensive and I'd have to replace my GND filter/holder set as well. I do have the possibility of buying a used copy from a photog friend of mine at a good price - the glass is pristine and the copy is sharp, however, there are some cosmetic marks around the outer barrell and such - cosmetic only but certainly kills resale. After selling my 17-40 I'd come out at around 600-700 CDN for the 16-35 upgrade.

The primes intrigue me for the extreme lowlight ability and playing with dof - my only worry here is that the fixed FL will be too restricting during events (i.e. 35L on one cam, 70-200 on the other). I've never owned any good fast glass really - the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2 were decent, but not in the same class as the 24/35. I've been dying to try one of these out for my personal work.

FWIW - I'm not interested in anything other than the 16-35 or 24/35 at this time based on past experiences and other reasons.

Thoughts?

Cheers!

if your not going back to FF why not pick up the 17-55 again?

^ what he said.

If you're not going FF anytime soon (and seeing that you don't have any FF bodies), I'm curious why the 17-55 doesn't make your list.

The only thing I've read about the 16-35L is that it's optically not that great on a cropper. Sure, build quality on the 16-35L might be nice, but if you're shooting weddings and other paid gigs, optimum IQ ought to be more important, IMO.

That said, if you are looking for a prime, my vote would be for the 24L. I don't have any experience with the 35L (as I only received my 24L yesterday), but from what I'm told, the IQ are very similar so you really can't go wrong with either. I just wanted something wide enough for my 40D and so far, I'm loving this prime.

FF is in the plan - whether it will be this year or next is still to be determined. This does play a factor in why I'm asking about the lenses I've boiled it down to.

I'm not interested in the 17-55 at all. I know it's a good lens, I've been through two of them already. While it does have the best range and feature set of all the 17-xx lenses for crop bodies, I can't bring myself to love it. The IS unit (failures) and build quality do not give me confidence, I'm not a fan of the feel and zoom creep. Yes I understand that these are small things not related to the optics. The optics are very good aside from the cooler color cast and a bit of distortion on the wide end. The big optical flaw for me is the flaring - it keeps it from being a go to lens for me. I understand that this lens is very good, and expected lots of "why not the 17-55" posts, just know that I've tried it, and it's not for me.

Again, the 17-40L is everything I want it to be, other than the limitation of F/4. Much of the time F/4 isn't a problem which is why I want to compliment it with a prime - but the 16-35/70-200 would be an extremely simply setup, which I like the sounds of as well.

I say get a nice prime then if your not interested in the 17-55.

35L, especially if you are going to go FF.

How wide do you need to go?

On crop, 24/1.4L is an awesome workaround (one of my favourites when I was shooting crop, and still amazing now I'm full-frame), but it's not exactly wide. I wouldn't want it to be my widest fast glass when shooting weddings on 1.6 crop.

35L if you are going FF, 24L if you are staying with a crop...

35L IMHO. You might have a problem if you find yourself in a small room, but I love my 30 F1.4 and the 35L is meant to be slightly better.

I'm going to review my EXIF further to see how often I shot my 17-55's wider than F/4 last season. I'm hoping I can make the 17-40 + fast prime work. If I was wide open alot then I may have to look long and hard at a zoom. Not having a great deal of experience with primes I'm trying to envision how working with one would be on a wedding day...

darktiger wrote in post #6999541
35L if you are going FF, 24L if you are staying with a crop...

^^^^^ that would be my advice to

Thanks all - I'm really leaning towards one of the primes, I've been so pleased with my 17-40 the past number of years I really don't want to part with it. That being said, the opportunity I have to catch a good deal on the 16-35 is tempting - but, what if it's not as good as my 17-40?

Dorman wrote in post #7002973
Thanks all - I'm really leaning towards one of the primes, I've been so pleased with my 17-40 the past number of years I really don't want to part with it. That being said, the opportunity I have to catch a good deal on the 16-35 is tempting - but, what if it's not as good as my 17-40?

It will only be as good as your 17-40 if it is a 16-35 II. But that still leaves you with a real gap for true low light and limited DoF.

Other than that, 35L is not wide at all, it is a long standard lens on a 30D, and the 24L is a very short standard lens on same 30D.

Personally, I would go for the 24L in this case. However, ideally I would couple this to a 5D rather than a 30D, but then, the same is true for 35L, 16-35L and 17-40L .

Essentially, with a 24L on a 30D, you'd get similar types of shots as a 35L on a 5D.

Just to give you an idea of the possibilities (on a 5D ), have a look here:
http://www.aperturapho​to.com/blog/

Ok, the first shot (Laura and Ross), is a TS-E 45 shot, but the rest is mostly 24L and 85L, interlaced with some 35L, 135L, 16-35L and 70-200 F/2.8L (and a 50 CM too). I think you need to look at the 35L shots specifically, they'll come closest to what the 24L on a 30D can offer, and to get a general idea of what is possible, look at the 24L shots.

Kind regards, Wim

What a small world. Looking at the apertura link, I scroll down to Baharak + Hamid and turns out she's a former co-worker of mine.

jwcdds wrote in post #7003252
What a small world. Looking at the apertura link, I scroll down to Baharak + Hamid and turns out she's a former co-worker of mine.

And I got the link from a Frenchman .

Kind regards, Wim