Need advice: Rumored 14-24 f/2.8L vs existing 16-35 f/2.8 L Advantages?

[pedro]

Hi, although my bank account is set up for saving, just a question towards the professional and more advanced photographers out there: As how important do you consider the additional 2mm on the wide end which will be offered by a rumored 14-24 f/2.8 L. Does it make a big difference or what would you do? What are the probable advanteges on the wide end?

As an enthusiast amateur I am on a budget and first considered the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6. But it is a tad too slow for my nightphotography preferencies: nightscapes and milky way preferably during moonless nights.

So, maybe I'd go for a 16-35 instead which as equivalent to the Canon EF-S 10-22 on my former 30D expect the difference in speed (about one stop, but permanently). The price tag surely will be another argument, as it will be considerably higher than the one of the 16-35 f/2.8 L (CHF 1361.00 online over here).

Thanks for your advice. Cheers, Pedro.

[crasher8]

For most, imho the biggest difference would be corner sharpness to rival the Nikon 14-24. I think the extra 2mm is a +1 but the real issue with Canon UWA zooms has always been corner sharpness. The 14 prime and the 17 TS-E are nearly flawless but not as versatile. I too am looking for a UWA compliment to my 24-105 and have bought and sold two copies of the 17-40, one having horrible contrast and the other too mushy on anything but the center, stopped down or not. I have tried Tamron, Tokina and Sigma. If it wasn't for the rumor I might consider a Nikon and an adapter and just shoot manual focus.

[pedro]

Thx crasher8 for your response. I was pondering about the 17-40 as well...But ducked away from it due to the speed. Soon we'll see if it is more than foam from a dreamers brain ;-)

[robbymack]

Since af doesn't sound like a deal breaker you could always try the Samyang 14mm 2.8  If a 14-24 does indeed get released it will be probably close to $3000. That certainly gives me pause and would likely need a stead income stream from that lens alone to justify its purpose. I'm looking for a good quality used sigma 12-24 or canon 17-40 myself as neither the 16-35 or a rumored 14-24 make my bank account happy.

[crasher8]

it will certainly not be 3k. I would suspect 1799.A few hundred more than the 16-35 yet still priced under the 14 and 17 TS.

[pedro]

@robbymack: 3k for me is out of range as well. Bought my 5D3 paying the 500+ premium this late summer, but I don't regret one cent of it. Crasher 8: 1799 would be great. Corner sharpnes s aside...That's a lot of money for additional 2 mm on the wide end But it would suit my 500/600 rule nightsky photography.

[Haydn1971]

I'm expecting a 14-24mm to be at least 25% more than the current 14mm f2.8 prime / 24-70mm f2.8

Firstly, that extra 2mm makes a big difference on focal lengths that wide - I went from a 18 to a 15mm and thought it was a big deal, going to a 10mm on crop just blew me away, so going from 16 to 14mm will be a big deal, plus the corner sharpness on a new 14-24mm must exceed that of the 16-35mm to justify actually releasing such a beast

Best thing to do is google "Canon 14 Flickr" and "Canon 16-35 Flickr" and get a feel for what others are shooting.

[paul13walnut5]

Hi Pedro, the 14-24 hasn't even been announced, released or tested yet.

If you want to wait then generally better things come along, but how long do you wait for.

If you were buying tommorrow you'd have the choice of the 16-35, 16-35 of 16-35, given your other requirements.

The real question is not whether a hypothetical lens is better than an actual lens that exsists, but how long you want to wait.

Remember, the 16-35 is on the mk2.  If you get the 14-24 when it comes out would you not be kicking yourself when the 14-24 IS or 14-14 mk2 comes out.

Best wait 10 years to be sure.

Or buy what you want / need to take photos with just now.

[crasher8]

I would not expect there to be a correlation between prime and zoom pricing. I would however expect a new uwa zoom price point 500-700 more than the current most expensive wide zoom (1399)

[pedro]

Thanks everyone for your insigthful replies! @paul13walnut5: The 16-35 is a classic. And a good alternative. Thanks for the suggestion. This will yield 15 sec of exposure applying 600 rule for nightphotography to keep the stars from trailing. At ISO 8k wide open it will work pretty well. As sensors improve, 6 years from now 8k ISO might be like 3k today IQ wise. I feel very privileged to be part of a forum and receive your feedback.

[Jesse]

The question is, is the 14-24 gonna be good enough to make the 14mm prime obsolete? Or will Canon purposely make it lesser to prevent this?

[Jesse]

Does anyone buy the $1500 Nikon 14mm prime?

[crasher8]

So you expect the rumored lens to be as good at 14 as a prime?

[messus]

The question is, is the 14-24 gonna be good enough to make the 14mm prime obsolete? Or will Canon purposely make it lesser to prevent this?

Well, the Nikon 14-24, @14mm, with a Canon EF adapter, has already made the Canon EF 14mm 2.8 L II obsolete.

Canon has got only one thing to do, really, and that is not what you are suggesting. But I am not even sure Canon is capable of making a new EF 14mm 2.8 III prime which is better than the Nikon 14-24 @14mm.

Canon sure is taking their time though, so let's hope they prove me deadly wrong!

Well, I'll just keep posting pictures taken with my flagship Canon cameras 1DX and 5D3, paired with a 14-24mm lens from their main competitor!

My corner soft, CA, vignetting EF 16-35 2.8 II lens was sold years ago. Only comfort is, this lens is not worse than the newer Nikon 16-35 f/4 optically. 

[RS2021]

"Always choose rumor over reality"... some should have it printed on their foreheads.