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

Hey everyone, I have a conundrum that I would love some advice on.

I'm about to take a two month trip across the US, hitting all the big national parks and pretty much just seeking out the mountains. I will be in BC as well, maybe even Banff at some point. I've got a budget of $4000, and part of that will already be dedicated to getting a Canon 5DsR for ~$3100, leaving me with roughly $900-$1000 for a lens. I currently have an 80D with an EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS USM, EF 50 f1.8 STM, and EF 70-300 f4-5.6 L. My passion is for landscape photography, but as a budding professional I know that I cannot simply jump into success in landscapes specifically and therefore would like to shoot portraits/weddings here soon.

I have already decided on getting the 5DsR, now I just cant decide whether I want to try and get a used copy of the EF 24 f1.4L or a used copy of the 16-35 f4 L. Based on the research I have done so far, the 24mm has the ability to produce a much sharper image, obviously partly due to being a prime lens (sharpness is something I am going for paired with the 5DsR) and also has the ability to be a lens for astrophotography with that wide aperture. However, it does not have IS, and of course any other focal length than 24mm. The 16-35 f4 seems to be one of the best dedicated landscape lenses, with great overall sharpness, a focal range that is more than that of the 24mm, and has IS which would make handheld shooting easier. Most of the time I will be trying to use the 5DsR on a tripod, but since it will be my only professional body, there is a good chance I will use it handheld a lot. Though I will be doing everything I can to avoid motion blur due to the massive pixel count in photos.

I'm interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on the matter, especially any experience related to the 5DsR with either of these two lenses.

who on earth told you the prime would produce sharper images? and why would even consider limiting yourself to a prime for landscapes?

my three main lenses for landscapes are 16-35L F4, 24-70L II and 70-300L. and I also have 14mm, 15mm and 100-400L II.

The primary reason to own the 24mm is the super fast aperture--basically a one trick pony. Unless you plan to heavily use this feature, the 16-35 f/4L IS is far and away your best choice. Razor sharp, even on the edges, solid IS function and focal length flexibility make it a winner for most. Just about everyone who owns this lens loves it, even in the snarky DPreview forums.

As others mentioned, I also think 16-35 is preferred for your application.
BTW, the 2-3 stop advantage from IS function on 16-35 could be obtained on 24mm from its wider aperture.

C3rvantes wrote:

Hey everyone, I have a conundrum that I would love some advice on.

I'm about to take a two month trip across the US, hitting all the big national parks and pretty much just seeking out the mountains. I will be in BC as well, maybe even Banff at some point. I've got a budget of $4000, and part of that will already be dedicated to getting a Canon 5DsR for ~$3100, leaving me with roughly $900-$1000 for a lens. I currently have an 80D with an EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS USM, EF 50 f1.8 STM, and EF 70-300 f4-5.6 L. My passion is for landscape photography, but as a budding professional I know that I cannot simply jump into success in landscapes specifically and therefore would like to shoot portraits/weddings here soon.

I have already decided on getting the 5DsR, now I just cant decide whether I want to try and get a used copy of the EF 24 f1.4L or a used copy of the 16-35 f4 L. Based on the research I have done so far, the 24mm has the ability to produce a much sharper image, obviously partly due to being a prime lens (sharpness is something I am going for paired with the 5DsR) and also has the ability to be a lens for astrophotography with that wide aperture. However, it does not have IS, and of course any other focal length than 24mm. The 16-35 f4 seems to be one of the best dedicated landscape lenses, with great overall sharpness, a focal range that is more than that of the 24mm, and has IS which would make handheld shooting easier. Most of the time I will be trying to use the 5DsR on a tripod, but since it will be my only professional body, there is a good chance I will use it handheld a lot. Though I will be doing everything I can to avoid motion blur due to the massive pixel count in photos.

I'm interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on the matter, especially any experience related to the 5DsR with either of these two lenses.

Why not the 24-70 f4 IS? It's a great lens general purpose lens that can handle landscapes very well. So is the new 24-105 f4L II

Personally my kit was the 16-53 f4, 24-105 f4ii, and 70-200 f4, and i ended up getting rid of the 16-35 because I wanted versatility more than I wanted specialty.  And by the time you stop down to around f8-16, the lenses are almost identical.

IMO 16-35 is more specialty than general purpose. And if you're going to be shooting weddings or portraits, you're better of sacrificing 8mm and going the general purpose route.

For landscapes the 16-35 has a significant larger shooting envelope over the 24 and would be my choice it is my second favorite lens.

a couple of years ago, I did a mega 24mm showdown test with the following lenses

Canon 24-70 2.8II, canon 24-70 f4 IS, canon 24 TSE II, Canon 24 1.4II, canon 24-105, Canon 16-35 f4 IS, Canon 16-35 2.8II, and Tamron 24-70 2.8 VR II.

The best was 24-70 II, followed by 24 TSE II (very closely).  24-70 f4 IS, and 16-35 f4 IS, both edged out the 24 1.4 II for corner sharpness.

There is no reason to get 24L II  specifically for landscape.  If you were to get one lens that satisfies your needs best now, I would give 24-70 2.8II a strong consideration, as a portrait lens as well fantastic landscape lens.  Landscape does not mean ultrawide. I love my 16-35 f4, but use my 24-70 nearly as much.

The 24L II is a better wedding prime, but not my choice for landscape.

Finally give the 5d4 a strong consideration.  It can not match the sheer resolving power of 5dsr for sure, but it has better dynamic range which may prove useful in both landscape and wedding photography, faster frame per second (again may be useful wedding). a very nice touch focus and live view focus, which is subperb for wedding video if you end up getting in to that.  So its sometimes a slightly inferior landscape camera if you are planning to do super large prints, (at times compensated for by better DR) but certainly the better wedding camera, and better all arounder

Enjoy your trip.

Dan_168 wrote:

it's two very different lens, but if I am going for a landscape trip and can have only one lens, between the two you have in question, 16-35L F4 is a easy decision for me. For landscape I often need more than 24mm FOV and some times I like 35mm, also more often than not, I stop it down to F8-F11 because I shoot on tripod 99% of the time, so 24 F1.4 offer no advantage over the 16-35L for me.

Only time I use large aperture in landscape is astro, in this case, 24mm is never wide enough for me for milky way shooting, even with 20mm, i have to stitch multiple picture to cover a full milky Way Arch, and this particular Canon 24L has boat load of Coma, I would call it one of the worst choice for Astro, a really cheap Samyang 14 or 24 would have been a much better choice when it comes to astro, therefore, 16-35 F4L is a easy win for me.

Hi this guy has summed it up very well ! the 24mm1.4 mk2 even is not sharp in the corners untill F2.8 and not useable for astro till f2.8 due to coma and edge softness i just sold my 24 mm 1.4 mk 2 i use a 16-35F4 which is a very sharp lens corner to corner also i have a  tamron 15-30 its the best zoom for astro as it sharp in the edges at 2.8 as well as centre with little or no coma it is better than the samyang 14mm F2.8 too but dearer (samyang/Rokinon have just released a 14 mm f2.4 which is excellent but a premium price too ! off course you do now have the choice of the 16-35 F2.8 Mk3 which is great at 16mm etc for astro (from reviews ive read ) but a humungous price !

5DsR + the 16-35 f/4 IS. you will never regret it.

Agree completely.  I use and love this combo!

kopper

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.

When I purchased 5DS, I almost immediately changed 16-35/2.8 II for the f4 version, f4 version is in my opinion sharper in the corners and I love it. For traveling it is a must have lens, it is not as sharp as 24-70/2.8 II, but for supper wide angle zoom it is just great.

The Canon 24-70mm II is the best standard-range zoom ever made. By any manufacturer. Ever. It’s not close.

It’s also the most expensive 24-70 f/2.8 zoom made, but there’s a reason for that. Resolution is as good as most prime lenses throughout the zoom range. Distortion is low. Focusing is very quick and accurate. -- Lens Rentals

I own 5dsr , 16-35f4L and 24Lii.

To my eyes, 24Lii is sharper than 1635f4. Both are great.

I like both lens. I think you better get 24L if you shoot in low light often.

I already sold my 24L and bought 35Lii.

I still keep my 16-35f4L for its vesatile.