DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

24mm f1.4 L vs 16-35mm f/4 L for landscape and general use

Started May 15, 2017 | Discussions thread
Tazz93
Tazz93 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: 24mm f1.4 L vs 16-35mm f/4 L for landscape and general use
1

While I don't fully subscribe to the Prime > Zoom argument I do accept it as an overall generalization... JUST BARELY. The newer zoom are so close, the difference is now "OK" for the added convenience and versatility.

The facet your decision should be based on is the things the other can't do. For example, the 16-35's ability to shoot twilight scenes with stars may be compromised. The 24mm can be opened up for a shorter duration keeping stars eh... more star like (no star trails unless intended). Or understanding the 16-35 will be vastly superior in CA due to the recent revolution in optical coatings (at least when compared to the 24mm L I).  While sharpness is a HUGE factor, make sure to look further than just that.

If it were me, the 24 TSE II would be on my short list. That's not for everyone, as it is the true epitome of a one trick pony with no AF and very manual or specific setup requirements.  However to a landscape photographer, it's "one trick", has many uses that most other landscaper photogs don't have access to.  Can definitely help to differentiate your work from others, and that goes a long way to "creating a brand" which all landscape professionals need.

 Tazz93's gear list:Tazz93's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS 5DS Canon EOS R5 Canon Extender EF 2x II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow