September 01, 2014, 10:07:15 AM

Author Topic: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?  (Read 10599 times)

cayenne

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1206
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2013, 03:23:55 PM »
I was going to go for the 16-35mmL, but a GREAT deal on a used 17-40L presented itself and I got that.

I'd been looking for something wider and I read great reviews on and ended up getting an excellent deal (I think it was like $199 or so?) for a new Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.

I LOVE this little lens. Yes, it is fully manual, but when shooting with something this wide, I'm finding that I have no problems with focus, most of my shots seem to end up set to infinity.

I did a lot of video shooting with it too this past weekend it worked like a champ for that.  You might read up on this one and look into it as a very economical choice for WA.  This is pretty much my only non-L glass I have (aside from the Canon 85mm f/1.8)...and I've been VERY happy with it.

Here's a link to one of them at the Amazon site:

http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE14M-C-Ultra-Canon-Black/dp/B003VSGQPG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379964156&sr=8-1&keywords=rokinon+14mm

They can be found for under $300, I can't remember the deal I got...I think it was a special Groupon purchase, but I've really enjoyed this little lens.

HTH,

cayenne

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2013, 03:23:55 PM »

AudioGlenn

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2013, 04:12:02 PM »
I like the 14mm but I think I want the flexibility of the 16-35 II.
5D mkIII  |  40 f/2.8 | 8-15 f/4L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 1.4x III TC | 600ex-rt | 430 ex ii | EOS M+22mm f/2 | EF to EF-M adapter

Eldar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2013, 04:52:49 PM »
I have the 16-35 II, but I rarely use it. I find the distortion beyond 24mm to be unacceptable. It can be OK on lanscapes, but not with people. I borrowed the 14mm once, but returned it with no urge to use it again.
If possible I prefer to shoot 35-50mm portrait shots and stich, rather than use the ultra wides. That is of course not possible with people though.
5DIII, 1DX, 8-15/4L, 16-35 f4L IS, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, 70-300/4-5.6L IS, 200-400/4L IS 1.4x, Zeiss 15/2.8, 17/4L TS-E, Zeiss 21/2.8, 24/3.5L TS-E II, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, 85/1.2L II, 100/2.8L IS Macro, Zeiss 135/2, 600/4L IS II

scottkinfw

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
    • kasden.smug.com
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2013, 05:14:51 PM »
Seems like a low risk proposition- not a lot of money if not used much.  Can you post some pics and tell me what you think are strong points and weak points please?

Thanks.

sek

quote author=cayenne link=topic=17120.msg316920#msg316920 date=1379964235]
I was going to go for the 16-35mmL, but a GREAT deal on a used 17-40L presented itself and I got that.

I'd been looking for something wider and I read great reviews on and ended up getting an excellent deal (I think it was like $199 or so?) for a new Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.

I LOVE this little lens. Yes, it is fully manual, but when shooting with something this wide, I'm finding that I have no problems with focus, most of my shots seem to end up set to infinity.

I did a lot of video shooting with it too this past weekend it worked like a champ for that.  You might read up on this one and look into it as a very economical choice for WA.  This is pretty much my only non-L glass I have (aside from the Canon 85mm f/1.8)...and I've been VERY happy with it.

Here's a link to one of them at the Amazon site:

http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE14M-C-Ultra-Canon-Black/dp/B003VSGQPG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379964156&sr=8-1&keywords=rokinon+14mm

They can be found for under $300, I can't remember the deal I got...I think it was a special Groupon purchase, but I've really enjoyed this little lens.

HTH,

cayenne
[/quote]
sek Cameras: 5D III, 5D II, EOS M  Lenses:  24-70 2.8 II IS, 24-105 f4L, 70-200 f4L IS, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, EF 300 f4L IS, EF 400 5.6L, 300 2.8 IS II, Samyang 14 mm 2.8 Flashes: 580 EX II600EX-RT X 2, ST-E3-RT
Plus lots of stuff that just didn't work for me

Frodo

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #19 on: September 23, 2013, 06:03:44 PM »
Seems like a low risk proposition- not a lot of money if not used much.  Can you post some pics and tell me what you think are strong points and weak points please?

Two photos attached:
Strong points
- Sharpness (especially no coma (important for star shots) and little CA) - apparently best in class
- Silky focusing

Weak points:
- Manual everything (but you knew that)
- Not sure how robust it is, e.g. mount attached by just three screws.  My focusing ring partially seized on me during a trip to Europe, effectively making the lens unusuable other than at infinity.  I don'tknow what happened, i.e. I didn't drop it.  It was replaced under warranty.

Non-point:
- Distortion.  Quite a few gripes about distortion but I find that LR correction to be excellent with little loss of image area.

If gear matters: 5DII, 7D, G11, Samyang 14/2.8, EF 24-105/4, EF 35/2.0IS, EF 50/2.5 macro, EF 85/1.8, EF 200/2.8II, EF 400/5.6, Ext 1.4x, Lifesize conv, Ext tube EF25, 430EXII, 270EX, Yongnuo 603C

nightbreath

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
    • View Profile
    • Свадебный фотограф в Днепропетровске
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2013, 02:45:10 PM »
Do anyone has observations on such characteristics as: color, contrast, etc?..
Colour and contrast are non issues, they just don't factor into even a semi competent digital workflow.
Really?  ???  Than why we almost always see high-end equipment behind professional-looking imagery?
I feel that what you say doesn't work for me. 17-40 and its "semi-competent" colors is an example ;)
Wedding photography. My personal website: http://luxuryphoto.com.ua

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2268
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2013, 05:55:20 PM »
Do anyone has observations on such characteristics as: color, contrast, etc?..
Colour and contrast are non issues, they just don't factor into even a semi competent digital workflow.
Really?  ???  Than why we almost always see high-end equipment behind professional-looking imagery?
I feel that what you say doesn't work for me. 17-40 and its "semi-competent" colors is an example ;)

I am surprised that a photographer of your caliber is still hooked up on such irrelevancies. A competent digital workflow has made it easy to normalise output across not only lenses but manufacturers too. Wedding shooters who do still prioritise the consistency of the dress colour throughout an album (a rarity now it seems) can easily have second shooters using different manufacturers now, that used to cause all sorts of problems.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying gear doesn't matter, that is a stupid and naive position to take, but specifically with regards lens colour and contrast, they are so easily adjusted and normalised nowadays I stand by my comments.

As for pro looking output, look up Brooke Shaden who uses a 50 f1.8 almost exclusively, or Lou Freeman who uses a 70-300 for much of her work. There are countless people putting out superlative work with comparatively modest gear.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2013, 05:55:20 PM »

nightbreath

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
    • View Profile
    • Свадебный фотограф в Днепропетровске
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2013, 11:10:11 AM »
As for pro looking output, look up Brooke Shaden who uses a 50 f1.8 almost exclusively, or Lou Freeman who uses a 70-300 for much of her work. There are countless people putting out superlative work with comparatively modest gear.
I'm a seasoned photographer. From my point of view images that don't have middle shadows (I have looked through their portfolio) do not conform the "semi-competent" workflow expected results  ;)
Wedding photography. My personal website: http://luxuryphoto.com.ua

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2268
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2013, 11:46:40 AM »
As for pro looking output, look up Brooke Shaden who uses a 50 f1.8 almost exclusively, or Lou Freeman who uses a 70-300 for much of her work. There are countless people putting out superlative work with comparatively modest gear.
I'm a seasoned photographer. From my point of view images that don't have middle shadows (I have looked through their portfolio) do not conform the "semi-competent" workflow expected results  ;)

You are joking right?

Brooke Shaden's images look exactly how she wants them to look. Lou's work has been competent enough for Playboy (she is one of only two women photographers to work for Playboy) and with a client list like this http://loufreeman.com/about/ I respect their collective opinion of her work a bit more than yours. Sure you have some great images, you are not an industry recognised authority with a client list like that, neither am I.

I do know that I can get my second shooters Nikon D3 with his 50 f1.8 (or even his POS 70-300!) to shoot images with indistinguishable colour and contrast characteristics to my 1Ds MkIII and 100 L Macro.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

nightbreath

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
    • View Profile
    • Свадебный фотограф в Днепропетровске
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2013, 03:32:10 PM »
Brooke Shaden's images look exactly how she wants them to look. Lou's work has been competent enough for Playboy...
I understand this. But I don't feel that recognition and artwork are tightly connected. And again — this is how I feel, not what people would say.

It seems there's a gap between two of us that makes understanding more complex. Let me exaggerate what I feel to make things clear:

I don't like this photo...

... because of:
- flat light;
- boring color harmony;
- lack of expression/emphasis;
- lack of veracity (I don't believe these people really do whatever they do, i.e. I see that they pose).

And the opposite to what we've just looked at is:

Why?
- good light;
- colors touch my feelings;
- readable emphasis;
- I 100% believe that girl; I don't even need to see her face, my imagination tells the story eyes can't see.

Another example. I don't like this photo...

... because of artificiality (lack of uniformity in lighting, shades, colors... you can even find duplicated sticks and see clouds from a sunny day) - my perception detects these things automatically without even noticing what exactly is wrong.

And the opposite is...

... because of consistency in what my eyes see.

My confidence is supported by my experience. The photos you have referenced to are similar to what I did one-two-three years before. And they suffered from the same issues mentioned above (and many-many others, by the way).

So the point is... photography (for me) is a mix of who you are and what you have (equipment, skills, story, etc.), so every small thing counts. It's all about content and the way you reproduce it. That's why, with all the small things floating in my mind, I have asked about color and contrast, because it works in conjunction with my current "equipment, skills, story..." mix  :)
Wedding photography. My personal website: http://luxuryphoto.com.ua

Vossie

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 315
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2013, 03:53:14 PM »
..

Nice examples and well underbuilt explanation; I fully agree with your analysis.
5D3, 16-35LII, 24-70 2.8LII, 24-105L, 85LII, 70-200 2.8LII, 100L, 135L, 100-400L, 50 1.4, 40 2.8, Sigma 180 3.5 EX, 1.4x TC III, 600EX, 550EX

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2268
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2013, 04:17:01 PM »
Not liking something is completely different from not being able to replicate it.

Being able to replicate something with exactly the same equipment is different from being able to create the same image with different equipment.

Being able to distinguish between images based solely on equipment used specifically with regards lens colour and contrast is something entirely different again, it is not connected to artist interpretation, likes or dislikes, they are empirically measurable metrics.

Anybody with a competent digital workflow can virtually eliminate individual lens "colour and contrast" as decision making factors in their photography process.

I only linked to those two photographers as examples to counter your comment "Really?  ???  Than why we almost always see high-end equipment behind professional-looking imagery?" There are thousands of people creating professional looking images with modest equipment, whether you, or I, like or dislike their output is not material.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

nightbreath

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
    • View Profile
    • Свадебный фотограф в Днепропетровске
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2013, 06:11:23 PM »
I should've been more specific when saying "professional"  :)  It seems I still cannot find a proper word to describe that kind of quality. I wanted to define somebody who's at the highest possible rung of every photography aspect.

For example, I have experienced a lot of different shooting environments and conditions. And sometimes a very similar set of equipment (same lens, flash, settings and subject; camera body is the only variable) gives different picture (i.e. lack of color variability).

Do know that each color `lives` in a specific to that color lightness levels? Sample showing yellow color specificity is attached, variability and saturation are the most interesting characteristics. So when it comes to post-processing and there's something you don't have in your original file, it won't magically appear there.

A theoretic example (straight out of my head): due to cheap electronics used in a camera it adds green tint to light green colors (by making them greener) and purple tint to dark green colors (by making them opposite to green). So the question is: would you even try making your colors look different from what your camera could achieve? What if we compare different camera manufacturers? Different sensor formats? Different lenses?..
Wedding photography. My personal website: http://luxuryphoto.com.ua

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2013, 06:11:23 PM »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2013, 06:34:16 PM »
For the money, to me the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 looks hard to beat...especially a slightly used copy for under $1k.  Obviously it's only a manual focus lens, but at least it can set aperture and confirm focus.

If I were about to travel to all the beautiful parks I want to visit (unfortunately I'm not doing that yet...), it seems to me that the best camera and lens...would be the above Zeiss mounted to a Nikon D800E.  Am I wrong to think this?  Just seems 18mm is the ideal wide angle focal length, because it still doesn't have a huge amount of rectilinear projection "distortion", as have the lenses around 15mm and wider.  Of course the future high megapixel Canon body will very likely be as good or better re/IQ than the D800E, but I bet that Canon will cost quite a bit more than the Nikon.  The color and contrast of that 18mm Zeiss glass, just cannot be denied...and that one is extremely affordable.  It might be slightly softer than the 21mm Distagon and the 15mm, but not enough to avoid using it...from the sample shots I've seen.  At 1/2 to 1/3 the price of the other two Zeiss (and the Canon 14mm f/2.8 ii), seems like an awesome value to me.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2268
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2013, 08:52:14 PM »
Nightbreath,

You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow.

CarlTN,

I would say you are wrong, I would say a 6D and a TS-E 24 MkII would serve you much better than a D800E and an 18mm Ziess, if you really didn't want to stitch, and there is no reason not to in parks photography, the 6D and TS-E 17 probably actually resolve very similar amounts as the D800 and Ziess but the TS-E gives you much more landscape functionality.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2013, 08:52:14 PM »