Guys and Gals,

So here comes the time of the year where I start changing my equipment (I like to test new equipment a LOT) and I have the opportunity to buy a 16-35 mk II for the same price I'll sell my 24L mk I.

Both lenses are AMAZING in every sense, and I own the 24L, but I love the look of a wideangle on my precious 5D. Help a pal make a wise decision because right now I am leaning 70% towards selling 24L and getting 16-35 mk II.

I should mention the following facts:

1. Apertures at 2.8 is more than fine because I can use flash when needed.

2. I love primes which is why I got the 24L and YES I have thought about 35L but now is not the moment, now I want something wider with a sharper crisp look.

3. I love bokeh, but at the wide end, it won't kill me to have reduced bokeh because I've got other telephotos to get that extra touch.

4. Apertures at 1.4 are extremely awesome but it won't kill me to go back to 2.8.

The decision will be made today. Your thoughts?

Sell 24L, get 24/2.8 and 35L or 21 distagon and 35L. =)

24 just isn't wide enough for those "wide opportunities", in my opinion. But the 16-35 is ideal for tight spaces, dancing/receptions etc. I love the look of fast primes as well, but they work better for me at the longer end of the range, like 50mm and 85mm. The 16-35 and the 50 are my two most used wedding lenses.

Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com

I like a nice prime sometimes, but at weddings, only really that for portrait shots. We also shoot a ton of lit stuff at f/9 or f/11, so the zooms look amazing at those f stops. Otherwise, nothing needs to be super sharp (like at receptions and so on).

Get the 16-35!!

-Zach

Get the 16-35 you would have to pry it out of my dead hands.

I considered the 24 II, but to convince my self I needed it I put my 16-35 on the camera and took some snaps at 24mm, looked at the images, and figured I did not need the 24L. Yes, the 1.4 would be nice, but unless you REALLY need it.....get the 16-35 IMHO.

YES!

Ok ummm...that's what I was looking forward to hearing

Getting that bad boy today!!!!

P.S. 24L up for grabs. Its almost like new got it brand spankin new May 2008 still with warranty and yes FM I'll be posting it on the buy/sell forum soon with pics

Keep them both - lenses are not very expensive and you will invariably regret selling.

RedWhiteandRed wrote:
Keep them both - lenses are not very expensive and you will invariably regret selling.

Red, I beginning to believe your independently wealthy. Actually it's good advice. Keep em both if possible. I'm purchasing a 16~35 and plan on a 24L within the next 60 days.

~Sam

Sam,

Didn't you have the 16-35 already?

Italo Campilii wrote:
Sam,

Didn't you have the 16-35 already?

never. Borrowed one for a recent session from an assistant. Loved it and am in the process of buying one.

~Sam

they are durable

I have had the 16-35L and bought a 24L because I wasn't satisfied with 2.8 anymore. So 24L for me.

THANKS YA'LL!!

I just pulled the trigger on the 16-35 II. Got it mint on ebay from a guy who happens to be a fellow FMr. SWEET price too!

24L up for grabs

Ofcourse the zoom....

I love my 24L, but just picked up the 16-35 for this wedding this week. Absolutely blown away. Now I need to find a way to keep it in my bag as I only bought to later sell after the wedding!

Oh boy its a sharp lens . . .

both

16-35.

I've been shooting crop bodies and the 10-22 is just about my favorite lens. My 5D arrives monday and a 16-35II is being held for me by a fellow photog, we just need to meet up.

(but then he's selling it to get a 24L...).

I'm a zoom guy, but I love my 50 1.2, I have a 28 1.8 but it's not got much bokeh to it unless i'm 1 foot from my subject, which I guess is pretty typical of WA lenses anyway.

If you consider the 1/focal length rule then the extra stop or two won't do much good anyway. There's not much point in handholding below 1/20 or 1/30 as you end up with subject motion blur.

Spencer, now I'm getting all excited. Can't wait for it to arrive in the mail!

Prof Fate I totally agree on the focal length part. Thanks for reassuring my decision!

16-35 for sure! I bought mine last fall, but wish I had pulled the trigger much, much sooner. I use it for every wedding reception and when you want to capture funny moments at the B&G/head table. The f/2.8 aperture is crazy nice to shoot - at this last wedding, I was using ISO1600, f/2.8, and 1/100 shutter for the reception. People are sharp, my subjects are well-focused (thanks, 1DM3) and I couldn't be happier with the results. It's one of those lenses that allows you to get creative, too.

I've never owned the 24L and I'm sure it's a wonderful lens, but I'd PERSONALLY get the 16-35 over a 24L...and I did! Plus, in the off-season or dead time, you can use it for some really, really sweet landscapes.

~Travis

Hello,

I have both, well 16.35 M I, and each one has its own field of action, zoom and 1.4.



Jaime
www.jmraso.com

Where the hell is sergio?

WELL...today I was doing some further testing before tuesday's wedding in Rome and OMG....I think I'm in love with 24L again...I think I'm gonna end up keeping 16-35 II and 24L

This is a sample shot I just took while packing with 24L.

im not ca non user so i dont know the quality of the 24L but I am say that I have a 28 1.8 for nikon and god damn it is amazing. i would not be caught dead on a shoot without it. i would also keep your 16-35. i have a 17-35 that i also use and again wouldnt go on a shoot without them. but my altime fav is the 50mm. i say invest your money in a 50 1.4 or 1.2 instead.

paparazzinick wrote:
im not ca non user so i dont know the quality of the 24L but I am say that I have a 28 1.8 for nikon and god damn it is amazing. i would not be caught dead on a shoot without it. i would also keep your 16-35. i have a 17-35 that i also use and again wouldnt go on a shoot without them. but my altime fav is the 50mm. i say invest your money in a 50 1.4 or 1.2 instead.

Thanks already got a 50 1.4 and absolutely keeping the 16-35 as well