November 20, 2017, 09:48:46 PM

Author Topic: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8  (Read 12302 times)

discojuggernaut

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 25
Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2013, 01:37:40 PM »
I had the 14 for a few months, and was happy to sell it at a decent price to fund the 17mm TSE.  I may go back to the Samyang 14mm, but i found the 14 Canon way overpriced and somewhat soft.  I loved the AF and ability to handhold at slow shutters, but found the focal length difficult to properly compose with.  You really need a prominent foreground subject to make a composition pop, and that precludes people because they will appear comical.  If you don't, everything will appear too far away and tiny.  And of course there is the filter problem for landscapes.

And if you use PP to correct perspective distortion on buldings, interiors, or trees, you'll be stretching out already somewhat soft pixels.  The TSE is amazingly versatile and sharp for methodical compositions, and can be used with extenders (but is manual focus and slower and has the same filter problem)

The 14mm is a great run-and-gun lens if you can create pleasing compositions on the fly, and is one of those "could not have been created with any other lens" lenses.  But it was too much for me to consider a 'vital' lens.  For reference i have the 24mm 1.4 II and am planning to add a wide zoom, probably 17-40.

Here are some examples of compositions i used it for:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2002065/images/14mm-sample.jpg

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2013, 01:37:40 PM »

Random Orbits

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1946
Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2013, 01:58:39 PM »
I'm a mechanical engineer so I probably understand optics better than most.  Qualitative opinion is what I am seeking.  What will the extra 2mm and 6 deg FOV give me beyond the physics and math?

Did you use your 17-40 much at 17 and/or wish that it was even wider?  If not very often, skip the 14mm focal length.

tiger82

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 414
Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2013, 02:16:32 PM »
I believe my math was correct: 3 degrees from center on each side adds up to 6 degrees unless you believe you get the additional FOV on one side.  It's 3 degrees wider on each side.
1DX Mark II. 5D Mark IV, 7D Mark II with various Canon glass covering 8mm-300mm

TommyLee

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 272
Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2013, 02:55:46 PM »
I have the 16-35 II ...got it first... a very nice lens
and
the 14L II had about 1-2 yrs...
also have the 70-200 II ...do NOT have the 24-70 ...have 24-105


MY PLAN was to have the 14L as a wide end of 24-70 II + 70 200 II
and also use 14L +35 Sigma + 85L II + 135L  as prime set

I could not bring myself to sell the 16-35 II because it was pretty useful in a two lens set...
like 16-35 + 100L macro...

now the compares
-  14L a fair bit sharper and a lot less distortion than 16-35

-  I believe the 16-35 bokeh quality is slightly better than the 14L

-  14L has more CA / fringing than 16-35

-  14L just has a better quality result (when you remove the fringing in LR / DPP)

-  14L  is small / compact....compared to 16-35  one fav feature for ME
....  the blasted 16-35 hood NEVER fits when I need it to....

-  14mm is a LOT wider /able ...  I wanted that...but as said it is more a specialty lens


.......................

for YOU
you already have zoom  in the 24-70
seems like the 14L fits underneath that lens..
BUT
you seem to be into the usefulness of a zoom ..
I see no primes ....
(me I carry the 14L, sig 35 and 100L/135L as a solid prime solution..I dont see that path in your lenses)

I never fell in love with the new 24-70 because I wanted I.S. on that range....
so I use the 14L below the 24-105 ....and a 135L above....
I use the 70-200 II less and less..and may sell it...(it is a wonderful optic though)

I am happy to carry a 14L 35 siggy and ...'something longer...maybe  a macro ...those 3 do all I NEED
..............or sometimes.... a 70-200 +TC2x... depending on needs)

so my response is the 16-35 is a fine lens .....and MAY get you to sell the 24-70 mkI  lens

I say get the 16-35 ...but make sure it performs... they vary .....

TOM


these 14L shots are a LOT wider , sharper, less distorted and sharp to edges than the 16-35...but that is what I wanted...besides the small lens size


« Last Edit: September 20, 2013, 03:38:08 PM by TommyLee »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4016
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2013, 03:08:16 PM »
Unless you LOVE the 14mm FOV, which is noticeably wider than the 16mm, or shoot detailed photos for huge prints, the 16-35 is about 1000x more versatile.  It's bigger, not as sharp, mostly in the extreme corners on FF, has less CA, but takes filters, doesn't have fragile glass dome, zooms, and can be used to shoot just about everything from landscapes to portraits to architecture. 

I'd suggest renting the 14mm if you really think you need it.  I was underwhelmed by it, but others (who love 14mm) consider it irreplaceable.  I'll trade 2mm, and a bit less corner sharpness for a lens that I can use for tons of stuff.

Of course, the dark horses in this are the Nikon 14-24 (w/Novoflex adapter) or the Zeiss 15mm, but you really have to love wide shooting to consider those...
CPS Score: 111 points, those 0 and 1 point items really add up

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2013, 03:08:16 PM »