Which lens make more sense for me to buy?

TonyUSA · Apr 13, 2017

I have $1,500 to spend on my next lens for 5D III. I am debating between Canon 35mm f1.4L II and Canon 16-35mm f4.
Since I don't have wide angle lens so those two lens came into my mine.

35mm- I can use this lens to take my kids photo when we go out. Also, I guess this is a good lens for portrait too but didn't see many nice photos from this lens from such as 500px so it seem to be this lens is not popular for many.

16-35mm- very nice wide and seen lots of photos with this lens and Many of them are super nice landscape photos on such as 500px and etc. This must be very popular lens.

Any help would be really appreciate.

Thank you,

JustBen · Apr 13, 2017

What are you planning to photograph more? Portrait or Landscape?

For the Portrait i would go with the 35mm F1.4 and for Landscape i would go with the 16-35mm.

Derrel · Apr 13, 2017

I think the zoom lens woulkd be more-versatile. Frankly, I see little to no use for a 35mm f/1.4 lens these days. I owned two Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 lenses...a very odd, specialized lens. The Canon 35/1.4L-Mark II is supposed to be a great lens, and I am sure it is. Famous photographer Sue Bryce (see her CreativeLive webinars, very good, I've watched two of them) LOVES to use her Canon 35/1.4-L for portraiture and boudoir work on the full-frame Canons she likes. It can be used, with very careful posing, to accentuate a woman's curves and features; used carelessly, I think the working distances the 35mm brings into play makes it NOT the best lens length for anybody except those who are extremely skillful posing practitioners. Using apparent perspective distortion, and getting close may make a woman's bosom look bigger, may make her legs look longer, make her waist look smaller; but this is tricky stuff. Used wrong, it MAY make a nose look bigger; it may make a chin look bigger; it may make a head look bigger and the body look smaller, and so on.

If you want a 35mm lens, buy Canon's 35mm f/2 EF lens, and try it out. There's NO NEED, really, for using f/1.4 or f/2 when we have great higher ISO these days; it's no longer the 1980's with ISO 200 the top speed for high-quality color photos, and 400 ISO a grainy, pastel mashup. I see little real need for the 35/1.4 lens for "most people". YES, for some uses, it is a great tool, but the 35mm f/2 will do very well in 90% of the same instances.

I might suggest that you stop listening to the Canon L-fanatics on simple lenses like the 35mm; Nikon does the same thing with its 35/1.4 G-series: this is a way for the camera-makers to extract a LOT of money for a lens type and model that is, for most people, more hype than help. Look into the 35/2 Canon, OR, just buy the zoom for its multiple focal lengths. Now, a 16 to 35mm zoom-now that is a useful tool!

TonyUSA · Apr 13, 2017

JustBen said:
What are you planning to photograph more? Portrait or Landscape?

For the Portrait i would go with the 35mm F1.4 and for Landscape i would go with the 16-35mm.

To be honest with you, I am not very sure what am I planning to do more.

greybeard · Apr 13, 2017

Derrel said:
I think the zoom lens woulkd be more-versatile. Frankly, I see little to no use for a 35mm f/1.4 lens these days. I owned two Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 lenses...a very odd, specialized lens. The Canon 35/1.4L-Mark II is supposed to be a great lens, and I am sure it is. Famous photographer Sue Bryce (see her CreativeLive webinars, very good, I've watched two of them) LOVES to use her Canon 35/1.4-L for portraiture and boudoir work on the full-frame Canons she likes. It can be used, with very careful posing, to accentuate a woman's curves and features; used carelessly, I think the working distances the 35mm brings into play makes it NOT the best lens length for anybody except those who are extremely skillful posing practitioners. Using apparent perspective distortion, and getting close may make a woman's bosom look bigger, may make her legs look longer, make her waist look smaller; but this is tricky stuff. Used wrong, it MAY make a nose look bigger; it may make a chin look bigger; it may make a head look bigger and the body look smaller, and so on.

If you want a 35mm lens, buy Canon's 35mm f/2 EF lens, and try it out. There's NO NEED, really, for using f/1.4 or f/2 when we have great higher ISO these days; it's no longer the 1980's with ISO 200 the top speed for high-quality color photos, and 400 ISO a grainy, pastel mashup. I see little real need for the 35/1.4 lens for "most people". YES, for some uses, it is a great tool, but the 35mm f/2 will do very well in 90% of the same instances.

I might suggest that you stop listening to the Canon L-fanatics on simple lenses like the 35mm; Nikon does the same thing with its 35/1.4 G-series: this is a way for the camera-makers to extract a LOT of money for a lens type and model that is, for most people, more hype than help. Look into the 35/2 Canon, OR, just buy the zoom for its multiple focal lengths. Now, a 16 to 35mm zoom-now that is a useful tool!

I have to totally agree on this one. With the ISO's and IQ available today with cameras like your 5DIII, I just can't justify shelling out $1.5k for a 35mm f/1.4. The 16-35mm makes a whole lot more sense to me.