Canon - 24mm F1.4 L or a 16-35mm F2.8 L

[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.

[kalniel]

Warning: I'm strictly in the 'any' advice category, not the 'seasoned'. In fact I don't even have a digital SLR so caveat emptor!

But I'd go for the prime - reasoning applied to your points are:

'Very dark conditions' - IMHO light is one of the first things to try and get in a photo. You can manufacture just about everything else - even if it means taking multiple shots.

Practicality - lens size is one area that other people won't think longer is better when you whip it out at a restaurant or BBQ. You will also feel more mobile, and having one less thing to worry about (zoom/framing) means you're more likely to just pick up the camera and capture a shot straight away.

[Bobster]

if you're shooting in low light conditions, why bother with filters?

why look @ the 24 if you want wider?

have you looked at the Tonika 11-16 2.8?
or the 17-55 IS 2.8?
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 18-50 2.8
Tonika 16-50 2.8
Canon 20 2.8
Sigma 20 1.8

[theuncharmed]

Thanks for the advice, I must agree having a prime lens does sound quite nice in that you probably have to think more about your shot and I admit, light is always THE issue when taking shots.

Bobster, I know you're a big fan of the Tamron gear [I've seen your shots as proof]. I did have a look at the Sigma 20mm 1.8 and the reviews suggested I wouldn't get anything sharp until F10 ! Which of course would go against what I'm trying to achieve.

Filter is primarily there for protection [lots of kids go to these BBQs and firepit meets].

Have you had much experience of Tonika lenses?

[StevenF]

What about the 50mm f/1.8mm? It's a lot cheaper than the others and is supposed to be really sharp. How do you rate then, Bob?

[theuncharmed]

Too long Otherwise my prayers would be answered!

[StevenF]

Too long Otherwise my prayers would be answered!

Ah ok... I'm considering getting one, only thing that puts me off is no AF.

[theuncharmed]

I wouldn't worry at all.

The manual focus spins freely [a tad too freely sometimes!] and it's right at the end of the lens so it makes manual focus quick and easy and it's only £50 for what is a pretty nifty lens [hence it's name the nifty fifty ]

[Bobster]

Tonika - i've not had any, but i know quite a few togs who use it, and its a great lens (next on my list of to gets)
i see that people have had a mixed bag with the Sigma 20 1.8, some say its too soft, other say its a little soft @ 1.8 but by 2.0 its pretty decent..

what speeds to you find yourself shooting at the most when @ 2.8?

[theuncharmed]

That's good to hear about the Sigma, might do some more research on it.

For 2.8 in the expected conditions, it's usually ISO 800 - 1600 @ 1/40 [depending on positioning with the light source, aka firepit]

Maybe I'm asking too much for something so specific. I was thinking last night that a tripod would actually be a very good idea. Just have to keep it near me, or block it away from the kids.

[IBM]

Ah ok... I'm considering getting one, only thing that puts me off is no AF.

No autofocus? Says who?

[StevenF]

No autofocus? Says who?

Well, not in my camera anyway. It will in the more expensive Nikons.

[theuncharmed]

Canon are launching a 24mm F1.4L II come December so I'm going to wait until then.

Although I might buy myself a 15mm fisheye for some big nose fun