[theuncharmed]

Hi all,

I'm in a bit of a pickle and was looking for some seasoned advice.

I currently have a Canon 30D [with a 1.6 crop factor] + Canon 24-70mm F2.8 L and want to have a low light wide angle lens for things like restaurants, evening BBQs and evening firepits [NB: most shots will be taken in very dark conditions]

My pickle is whether to go with a 'prime-ultra-low-light' lens, or go with a 'wide-angle-low-light-zoom' lens.

Positive and negatives of the 24mm

+ Ultra wide aperture / no flash
+ 24mm is wide enough for most 'couple' shots on a 1.6 crop factor
+ Lens is half as light as the 24-"I'm a brick"-70mm
+ Cheaper than the 16-35mm

- Prime lens, no zoom
- lots of money for just one function
- offers only 2 benefits over the 24-70 [lighter and wider aperture]

Positive and negatives of the 16-35mm

+ Ultra wide zoom
+ Should be wide enough for a 'get all my muckers in 'n'round a firepit' shot
+ Weights a third less than the 24-70

- Slightly more expensive than the 24mm
- Takes an 82mm filter meaning I'll have to buy one
- Has a smaller aperture than the 24mm [half as much light]
- offers only 2 benefits over the 24-70 [lighter and wider zoom]

If anyone has any advice it would be appreciated.

[Tobers]

16-35 every time. Much more flexible. I dont think the 24mm will be wide enough and there's only so far you can back into a corner to get a shot.

If you want a wider angle the Sigma 10-20 is well worth a look as is the Canon 10-22. Not that fast, but you can always play with the ISO and put the camera on a tripod.

Maybe a 10-20 plus a fast prime wide angle from a non-Canon manufacturer and you could have your cake and eat it.

[theuncharmed]

Thanks for the advice

I should have actually mentioned the 10-22 was a non-starter. I was actually going to buy one of these the other day instead of the 24mm and then realised it wouldn't work with my next purchase, either the 5D or the 5D MKII when it comes out.

As for non-canon lenses, I've seen some great F2.8 models around from sigma and tamron, it's just that I don't have the same level of trust in them as I do anything L.

Take the Sigma 20mm F1.8 - looks good on paper, but doesn't get really sharp until F10! You can now see why I trust L above all else

Ok so far it's:

16-35mm L - 1 | 24mm - 0

[Tobers]

Ah yes, if you are going 5D next, then ditch the 10-20.

Might be worth checking for vignetting on full frame with the 16-35. Maybe s shuftie around Flickr would help you.

[theuncharmed]

Originally Posted by Tobers

Might be worth checking for vignetting on full frame with the 16-35. Maybe s shuftie around Flickr would help you.

I actually really like the vignette effect anyway, so it's not a real concern. And heck my friend gets a vignette on a 50mm F1.4 with his 5D

[paulwIre]

I've been considering this too. I ended up buying the 16-35mm and should get it this weekend.

It's a lovely light lens with great quality and very wide too.

[salubrious_k]

I use a 35 f1.4 on my 5D, which is similar to the 24 f1.4 on a 30D taking into account the crop factor. I love the lens, and wouldn't want to swap it for a 16-35 if given the chance. I find the creativity that f1.4 offers you is just superb.

[theuncharmed]

Ooh, I was just about to say I've made my mind up with the 16-35 when along comes salubrious_k and sways me back ...

Ok so it's 2 for the 16-35 and 1 for the 24mm.

Am waiting to see the best price I can get on the 16-35, money after all is possibly the biggest deciding factor of all!

[tomson]

Are you looking at a Mk1 or Mk2 16-35mm?

I had a Mk1 and wasn't that impressed with it - sharpness was a bit lacking near the edges and distortion was pretty noticeable. Never used a Mk2 though.

[theuncharmed]

Originally Posted by tomson

Are you looking at a Mk1 or Mk2 16-35mm?

MK II model for sure. Haven't heard the greatest about the MK 1s either.

[jonnypb]

The 16-35 will be more flexible with it's zoom range but like you say it offers only 2 benefits over the 24-70 (lighter and wider zoom).

24 1.4 will let you be alot more creative with the DOF and as it's a fixed focal range it might make you think about the composition of your shots more.

Both great lenses and I wouldn't like to choose between them. I love my 50 1.4 and excels in low light even compared to my 17-50 2.8

The MTF charts on photozone suggest that the 24mm has better centre sharpness but the 16-35 is slightly better with border sharpness

Originally Posted by theuncharmed

want to have a low light wide angle lens for things like restaurants, evening BBQs and evening firepits [NB: most shots will be taken in very dark conditions]

Your above comment screams to me go with the 1.4 aperture as you'll get an extra 2 stops of light. If you think 24mm will be wide enough for you then I would vote for the 24 1.4

[theuncharmed]

Thanks for the great advice again.

I'm going to do some testing on how wide my 24-70 really is and I think that will make the decision.

If it's good enough for restaurant and firepit shots then I'm settling with the 24mm. Otherwise I'll have to opt for the 16-35 and get a tripod / monopod thing going on.

Thanks again for all your comments, I haven't bought one yet so please feel free to chip in any advice

[Radiohead]

Keep your 24-70mm at 24mm and see. I suspect it won't be wide enough on a 30D.

So, I'd get both

[theuncharmed]

Was just about to place my order [decided on the 24mm] when I thought I'd check the press releases from Canon. Lucky I did, Canon are launching a new 24mm F1.4 this December!

So I'll revisit my purchase choice come December, until then I might grab myself a fun 15mm Fisheye