Lens dilemma, seeking advice

I'll start off with what I have and scenarios:

I moved from 7DMKII to 5DMKIV and am happy with the move, the quality really is something else but that left me in lens dilemma.

Canon 5DMKIV
Canon 24-105 f4L II
Canon 35 1.4L II
Canon 16-35 F4 (just purchased)
Canon 70-300L
Canon 100 F2.8 L

For my portraits that we shoot, I used the 35 A LOT on my crop sensor and it was nearly perfect for what I need in group shots or close ups. But now that I'm on FF it's only good for limited scenarios. I currently use the 100mm Macro for portraits and am considering the 85 1.2L as I rented it and really liked it. I'm also waiting for a newer Canon 50 1.2 to come out as the current is just too soft and slow.

With that said, I recently purchased the Canon 16-35 F4 because I wanted to replace my Canon 10-22 EFS lens that does not fit my 5D. It just came in, it's a great lens, leaps and bounds better than the 10-22, especially in the corners. I woke up this morning and started to think about lenses; I feel that I may have a little bit of an overlap and potential waste in money right now. I have the 16-35 F4 and the 35 F1.4 lens, would I be better off to return the 16-35F4 and sell the 35 1.4 and buy the 16-35 F2.8 III? I could use it for my UWA Landscape needs and zoom in to 35 f2.8 for certain portrait needs.

I'm going to re-read Bryan's review on the lens but are the corners on this lens closer to the 10-22 or 16-35 F4? I also noticed that the 16-35 F2.8 has a filter size of 82mm vs 77mm on the F4 version. That's a bummer as I have a really nice B+W CPL that I use on the 24-105 and was planning on using for the 16-35 lens.

Note, the 16-35 would not be used for portraits, but for Landscapes. There's been a few times where I've used 35mm for portraits and so I would use this lens for that as well if warranted.

Thoughts? I hope this all makes sense, I'm still weaning myself off of cold medicine. :)

Full Frame opens up the potential of the 35mm f/1.4L II. I always enjoyed that combination.
It is really only needed in your kit for shots f/2.0 or wider, (shooting at night and giving you that incredible bokeh all the time). I would suggest you play with it a while before you unload it.

I sold my 16-35mm because I never used it. I just didn't lean toward a UWA lens, if I did I would look at a prime. I have the 24-70 and it covers much of the 16-35mm range so to me a prime would make more sense.

Maybe sell the EF 35mm f/1.4L II and pick up a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art and EF 35mm f/2 IS USM instead? You'd gain a wide aperture prime that's in your butter zone for portraiture and you'd only be giving up 1-stop of maximum aperture at 35mm (while gaining IS).

I agree that the 35 1.4 is a great lens, I'm just trying to get the most out of my money and am wondering if the 16-35 2.8 will cover both needs. I do shoot UW for certain landscapes so the 16MM is going to be in my bag- I just need to determine which one.

At some point I'll worry about the 50 and 85 but for now I need to cover my UWA needs.

It is not that the 35 is a great lens, you have three great 35mm lenses, it is a unique lens. And with the IQ you can get out of the other two it really has become more of a specialty lens.

For me the answer is that the 16-35mm III will not cover the 35mm f/1.4 II's specialty attributes.

You have 24-35 covered twice and 35mm covered three times.

Why not sell three lenses and switch to a 24-70 II? It will give you a sharp f/2.8 and the only question is again what to do for uwa.

Do you think you need f/2.8 at 16mm?

I'd only use 2.8 @ 16MM for shots of the Milky way which aren't something I dabble in all of time. My plans for 16-20mm is for certain landscapes, city shots (mostly f/8-16).

Right now, I only use the 35 for photos of my daughter inside which have worked out really well, primarily @ 1.4 and 2.8. I could use the 35 for group shots but is a bit too wide for my style.

I had thought about the 24-70 lens but I have the 24-105II and I use that for my landscapes, not for portraits. I would only use the 24-70 from 50-70mm so it would not be worth my investment at this time as I'd rather have a 50 and 85 with lower apertures.

I just feel like the 35II is not going to be utilized that much and condensing 2 lenses into one would be good. My biggest concern is the 16-35III's corner quality. The 10-22 was awful in the corners.

Get a 50/1.4. Ignore the fact that it doesn't have a red ring...lots of people use it day in/day out for lots and lots of shooting. It'll give you what you had with 35mm on 1.6x crop.

Although I shuffled our wide-angle lineup before the 16-35/2.8III was announced and I do have the luxury of a 14/2.8 on the shelf, I sold my 16-35/2.8II when I got the 16-35/4IS and I haven't missed it AT ALL. I've since added the 35/1.4II and would never, ever consider selling it, as it's got a "look" that's just so spectacular.

I don't think you're giving the 50/1.2 enough credit, but we've debated that already I think. The 50/1.4 won't break the bank, will perform very well, will fill a specific gap that you've identified, and will hold its value reasonably well if Canon were to actually do a new edition of the 50/1.2 (so you could sell to trade up). I don't see the value in returning a $1000 lens to buy a $2200 lens for a stop of aperture and to surrender IS. I also think your lens collection is on the verge of being big enough that you may soon just have to accept that not every lens gets used a lot...that's OK.

Part of the problem is that I'm trying to have lenses that cover both areas (Portrait side of my photography & general landscape/wildlife). If I keep the 35 and just use it for the portrait type use I'd be fine with my new 16-35 f/4.

Sometimes I wish that I could easily get to B&H to test lenses but that could also be a bad thing. :)

The effective length you are missing is 50, the 50 Art is a heck of a lens.

UWA, wondering if you can ditch the 24-105 & 16 -35 f4 and go 16-35 v III + the 50 art.

I know the 24-105 is just a darn handy range, if the new one is sharp above 70 I may go back to it, but it sounds like you are looking for the 50 for bokeh/portrait and UWA? All the reviews rave about the new V3 16-35

The topic is getting a little lost and it could be due to a groggy morning when I wrote this. I have no plans of getting rid of the 24-105. I was basically wondering the difference between the two 16-35's and contemplating selling the 35 1.4.

I've been reading, thinking, etc and I will probably stay with the 16-35 f4 and 35 1.4 for now. The 16-35 f4 will be great for my UWA needs and the 24-105II will be perfect for landscapes as well.

Canon 5DMKIV
Canon 24-105 f4L II
Canon 35 1.4L II
Canon 16-35 F4 (just purchased)
Canon 70-300L
Canon 100 F2.8 L


My most basic advice is that is a nice line up. You now own it. Shoot with it and see what you use and like. I tend to reassess my kit each winter and then shoot with it for the next year to see what I like and do not like and adjust my kit the following year. I would recommend something similar. You had reasons for buying each of these lenses. You own them. Shoot with them for awhile and see what you like using, what you do not end up using much at all, and what holes do you have that need filled.

Also, for every shot I can see you "gaining" by going to the 16-35 III, I can see you losing the same or more shots by selling off the 35 II and losing IS from the 16-35 f/4 IS. Sometimes reshuffling the deck is just that, no net gain.

As for the initial assessment, I can see keeping all three, especially if you end up liking the 35 mm focal length, as they each serve a purpose:

• The 24-105 II is your general purpose zoom. I replaced Mark I with the 24-70 II and it is, by far, my most used lens. BTW, was this a kit lens? I didn't think Mark 2 was out?
• The 35 f/1.4 II will give the wide aperture, low light, best IQ, blue-goo, limited distortion, bokeh, and easy has the best vignetting at each respective aperture (f2.8 or f/4). People might argue that vignetting can be corrected in post, but if you already shot at ISO3200, and you pay a 3 stop push penalty in the corners, the correction is noticeable, IMO.
• The 16-35 f/4 IS is your UWA lens that can also serve as a wider general purpose zoom. I am constantly switching between the 16-35 f/4 and the 24-70 II for waterfalls and other landscapes. Both are excellent and very nice to have.

I can see people selecting the 16-35 VIII for indoor event shooting and starscapes. But it has pretty significant vignetting at f/2.8 and almost the same vignetting at f/4 as the 16-35 f/4 IS. I am sure this will be an excellent lens, but the vignetting will affect starscapes, it is also bigger/heavier and you loose IS.

My last thought, regarding the 50 mm discussion. The Canon Store tends to have some good refurbished sales after the "holiday return" season. You could probably pick up a 50 f/1.4 for a very nice price. I've owned it and f/2.8 and up, it is near perfection. f/2 is very good. f/1.4, not so much. But for not much money, you would be able to see what you think about 50 mm focal length on FF.

I've had some time to think and experiment. I am going to keep the 16-35 f/4; it's a really nice lens- not perfect for astro great for landscapes (hoping to get some really good winter shots this year) and I even used it well for a portrait session to bring out the setting for 2 scenes. I'm also going to keep the 35 1.4 II; I've used it a bit for family gatherings, portraits and am starting to get used to using it for those certain situations.

One thing that I'm still debating on is the 24-105II vs 24-70II. The 24-105 fits my landscape needs when I don't want UWA and has the zoom I sometimes need and the 24-70 has that low aperture for inside shots of family gatherings, portraits, etc. I could use it for landscapes but no IS and the shorter range is a downer. I've read so many reviews where people have replaced their 24-105 with the 24-70 as their walk around lens but everyone uses lenses differently.

I may table to 24-70 for awhile and put the $ towards the 85 1.2II (or do I want to wait for the rumored 85 1.4? wish it were the 85 1.2 III).

It's concerning when you put all of your assets into Excel and tally up everything with what you have already. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photog82

I've had some time to think and experiment. I am going to keep the 16-35 f/4; it's a really nice lens- not perfect for astro great for landscapes (hoping to get some really good winter shots this year)

---

I picked up the Rokinon 14 f/2.8 UMC for astro and UWA (before I had the EF 16-35 f/4 IS). I would recommend buying two copies from someone with a good return policy. I and a friend have now both done this. In both instances, one was incredibly sharp and the other, very poor. Great lens when you get a good one (significant distortion, but sharp optics). Very poor quality control by Rokinon. At least two years ago. I am waiting to see more about the Samyang "XP" 14 mm that was recently announced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photog82

It's concerning when you put all of your assets into Excel and tally up everything with what you have already. :)

---

Yeah....the list gets long. I started in 2010 and have infused some cash every year. Amazing how quickly that amasses into something significant.

All I can say is make sure they are insured. :o Mine are on a rider to my home owners insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I picked up the Rokinon 14 f/2.8 UMC for astro and UWA (before I had the EF 16-35 f/4 IS). I would recommend buying two copies from someone with a good return policy. I and a friend have now both done this. In both instances, one was incredibly sharp and the other, very poor. Great lens when you get a good one (significant distortion, but sharp optics). Very poor quality control by Rokinon.

---

Second time was the charm for me, first one was badly decentered (one corner was total mush).