Looking for an exceptional wide angle lens

Hi,

I just got the 5D IV with 100mm L macro lens so I'm covered on macro, portraits and some outdoor shots where I want nice, soft bokeh. What I really want now is a lens for landscape and city shooting, as well as possibly for some real estate indoor freelance work. I'm currently split between the 35mm f/1.4L II USM and 16-35mm f/2.8L III, but open to other suggestions. Price is not really an issue.. the flickr galleries for both of these lenses speak for themselves.

And I know that this isn't strictly an apples to apples comparison (prime vs zoom), though they're both quite fast, wide aperture lenses. I would also prefer to stick to Canon, not third-party.

I would guess that my usage will be about 50/50 handheld/tripod. I definitely plan to shoot some longer exposures and will shoot at night and various low light conditions.  Probably some stars/milky way when I can get out of NYC. But of course, then I will be using a tripod.

Something about the 35mm fixed prime speaks to me (that bokeh..), but I guess I'm afraid that its usage and picture quality may overlap too much to what I already have with the 100mm macro lens, just at a different focal length. Also there's the extra bit of versatility with the 16-35 zoom..

Any thoughts or suggestions would be much appreciated!

taso89 wrote:

Hi,

I just got the 5D IV with 100mm L macro lens so I'm covered on macro, portraits and some outdoor shots where I want nice, soft bokeh. What I really want now is a lens for landscape and city shooting, as well as possibly for some real estate indoor freelance work. I'm currently split between the 35mm f/1.4L II USM and 16-35mm f/2.8L III, but open to other suggestions. Price is not really an issue.. the flickr galleries for both of these lenses speak for themselves.

And I know that this isn't strictly an apples to apples comparison (prime vs zoom), though they're both quite fast, wide aperture lenses. I would also prefer to stick to Canon, not third-party.

I would guess that my usage will be about 50/50 handheld/tripod. I definitely plan to shoot some longer exposures and will shoot at night and various low light conditions. Probably some stars/milky way when I can get out of NYC. But of course, then I will be using a tripod.

Something about the 35mm fixed prime speaks to me (that bokeh..), but I guess I'm afraid that its usage and picture quality may overlap too much to what I already have with the 100mm macro lens, just at a different focal length. Also there's the extra bit of versatility with the 16-35 zoom..

Any thoughts or suggestions would be much appreciated!

For a long time, my favorite walk-around lens combo was the 35 and 135. When I knew cool macro opportunities would present themselves, I switched in the 100 and never felt that there was overlap between the 35 and 100.

I've done real estate work and 16mm is indispensable. 35 alone just doesn't cut it. And for landscapes and city shooting, the versatility of the zoom is unbeatable.

I have both the new 35 and the new 16-35 zoom and generally pack the prime when I'm shooting for myself. Both are great tools. My copy of the zoom is amazing through the range, but the prime is definitely as sharp at f1.8 as the zoom is at f2.8.
Price is not really an issue? Dude, buy both, and add the 300mm f2.8L IS mkII! You're in the middle of a first-world problem. Enjoy it while it lasts.

taso89 wrote:

Thanks for the input everyone. I actually ended up going with the 16-35mm F/4L; I was able to nab it for a bit less than half the cost of the 16-35 III F/2.8. While price was not a big issue, it was hard to spin around in my head to pay an extra grand for the extra stop with no IS. Looking at various galleries for these two lenses, it's fairly difficult to distinguish significant differences in IQ. This way I have a little extra left over for a good polarizer filter.

I think the 35mm III prime is still somewhere in my near future..

I have both 35mm f/1.4 II and the 16-35 f/4.  Both are excellent lenses!  I use the 35 f/1.4 II for environmental portraits, low light indoor shots, and even some detail shots (it has a short minimum focus distance). The 16-35 is awesome for landscape work and I also use mine a lot for video since it has image stabilization.

taso89 wrote:

What I really want now is a lens for landscape and city shooting, as well as possibly for some real estate indoor freelance work.

I would guess that my usage will be about 50/50 handheld/tripod. I definitely plan to shoot some longer exposures and will shoot at night and various low light conditions. Probably some stars/milky way when I can get out of NYC. But of course, then I will be using a tripod.

If you can only choose one, sounds like the 16-35L f2.8 III is your lens.  As great as the prime is, it's not a good solution for real estate work.

Or...save some $$ and buy the 16-35L f4 and a 35 f2 IS.