Lens dilemma, seeking advice

[Photog82]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Sean Setters]

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).

[Photog82]

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.

[HDNitehawk]

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?

[Photog82]

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.

[peety3]

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.

[Photog82]

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.

[Busted Knuckles]

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

[Photog82]

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.