November 26, 2014, 08:53:43 PM

Author Topic: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?  (Read 11746 times)

eml58

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1513
  • 1Dx
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2013, 09:22:28 PM »
I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.

Completely agree with this.

I own the 14f/2.8 II & 16-35f/2.8 II, plus the Zeiss 15f/2.8, I think the Zeiss (Although Manual Focus) is ahead of the Canon 14 & 16-35 in IQ, The 17TSE II is just an amazing Lens (Also Manual Focus), and I just added the Wonderpana Filter Holder from Fotodiox to it, so now I can use my Lee Filters, so it's become even more usable.

Only real issue with the Zeiss is it cant be used with Filters, at least I cant work out how it could be done, but it has excellent IQ. I mostly now use the Canon 14 & 16-35 for my Underwater Imaging where I find the small issues that both Lenses seem to have are not so prominent.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2013, 09:22:28 PM »

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2013, 09:53:35 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.

Thanks for the advice.  The reason not to "always stitch", is because it takes extra time.  I find myself always short on time when I'm doing landscape photography, visiting parks.  Why?  Because it's hours of driving and a few minutes of shooting (unless I camp in one park...but then, that means less time visiting other parts of the park, or other parks).  Of course I would also want to do some pano stitches, but seems like the combo I mention would be a handy thing.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2013, 09:55:34 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.



Nice shots!  The Sigma 24mm f/1.8 I recently bought, has coma in the outer third of the field at wide aperture, but I find it only shows strongly on the brightest stars.  Would be simple enough to clone the coma out.

nightbreath

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
    • View Profile
    • Свадебный фотограф в Днепропетровске
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2013, 03:33:23 AM »
You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow.
We definitely speak different languages. It seems that your vision and my vision are different. And even taking into account all you said, it doesn't work for me. I would pay twice for 10% win in initial IQ.
Wedding photography. My personal website: http://luxuryphoto.com.ua

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2780
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2013, 08:44:51 AM »
You are clearly not familiar with the idea, concept or implementation of camera profiles. A prerequisite, in my opinion, for a competent digital workflow.
We definitely speak different languages. It seems that your vision and my vision are different. And even taking into account all you said, it doesn't work for me. I would pay twice for 10% win in initial IQ.

Just because you choose not to learn something doesn't mean it is difficult. Saying "it doesn't work for [you ]" doesn't mean it doesn't work. This is not about "vision", as in an artistic idea, this is about vision, as in what you actually see with regards colour, tone and brightness.

Colour, tone and contrast are not intrinsic IQ characteristics in a digital workflow, contrast, tone and colour response curves are 100% adjustable in a RAW file with zero negative effects, and normalising can be done automatically. Telling a display to show a pixel at 187,35,211 rather than display that same pixel at 183,35,207 has no detrimental effect on image quality. That is all profiling is doing, telling pixels how to be displayed when compared to a reference, if you do that with different brands of camera or lens they all display the same.

I paid $3,500 for a 300mm f2.8 lens instead of $1,200 for an f4 version because to me that one stop, an intrinsic characteristic of the lens, is worth the money. Light gathering capability can not be changed in post, neither can shutter speed. That is not true of colour, tone and contrast, they are easily changed, easily profiled, and easily normailised in a competent digital workflow.
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

AmbientLight

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2013, 08:58:02 AM »
I don't understand the argument for ignoring differences in color rendering. It should be obvious that different quality lenses do render color differently.

If someone always heavily post-processes whatever has been shot, that may be a negligible difference as that photographer might risk losing some tonal quality anyway, but whenever you go for a specific look and its just gone, if your lens isn't able to capture all the nuances out there, you won't easily get that back in post processing. Wouldn't this be wasting your time?

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2780
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2013, 11:57:34 AM »
I don't understand the argument for ignoring differences in color rendering. It should be obvious that different quality lenses do render color differently.

If someone always heavily post-processes whatever has been shot, that may be a negligible difference as that photographer might risk losing some tonal quality anyway, but whenever you go for a specific look and its just gone, if your lens isn't able to capture all the nuances out there, you won't easily get that back in post processing. Wouldn't this be wasting your time?

The point is when choosing a lens, colour rendering and contrast are so easily adjusted now they shouldn't be an important factor in purchasing decisions.

When I used to shoot weddings on film colour correcting was out of my hands, lens colour was much more important and having a second shooter using a different camera and lens system was fraught with best colour management practice issues, it was a nightmare if you strove for consistent dress colour throughout an album.

Now, with a solid and competent digital workflow all camera and lens colour and contrast variability is so easily normalised with zero hit in IQ that it should play zero roll in choosing lenses.

Every lens out there, certainly any that natively fit on an EF mount, is more than capable of catching tone and colour nuances, due to the coatings used the effects on those nuances can be large or small, but normalising is one test image and one click away.

Flower photography is well known to have severe colour issues, try doing any kind of serious flower photography without camera profiles and you will see, it isn't the quality of the lens you use, it is the quality of your workflow that maintains accurate colour and tonality (again, not an artistic point but a measurable technical point).

Now we all know we can have technically sound but very boring images, that goes without saying, we can also have striking images without technical knowledge; but if we are to master our craft we need a good balance of the two.

I have listened to so many instructors preach on about "lens compression" I die a little inside each time I hear it, there is no such thing as lens compression, the effect they are talking about is perspective, plain and simple. They shouldn't be teaching that subject. Same with lens colour and contrast, nowadays those two are complete non issues.

Obviously there are important differences between lenses and software can't overcome things like lower resolution, slower AF, no AF, no IS, less light gathering (slower apertures), heavy distortion and very strong aberrations (small adjustments are easy but larger ones increase any IQ hit) so I am not advocating that any lens can do any job. All I am saying is the oft touted colour and contrast characteristics of a lens are practically immaterial now.
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2013, 11:57:34 AM »

Eldar

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1703
    • View Profile
    • Flickr
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2013, 12:18:51 PM »
I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.

Completely agree with this.

I own the 14f/2.8 II & 16-35f/2.8 II, plus the Zeiss 15f/2.8, I think the Zeiss (Although Manual Focus) is ahead of the Canon 14 & 16-35 in IQ, The 17TSE II is just an amazing Lens (Also Manual Focus)
+1
I had the 14 and sold it. I have kept the 16-35 II, but I hardly ever use it. Last week I bought the 17 TS-E and played with it over the weekend. What a lens!! I have not looked at the filter solutions yet, but it seems there are alternatives that´s working.
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, Zeiss 35/1.4, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4, Zeiss Otus 85/1.4, 100/2.8L IS Macro, Zeiss 135/2, 600/4L IS II

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2780
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #38 on: October 01, 2013, 12:26:22 PM »
I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.

Completely agree with this.

I own the 14f/2.8 II & 16-35f/2.8 II, plus the Zeiss 15f/2.8, I think the Zeiss (Although Manual Focus) is ahead of the Canon 14 & 16-35 in IQ, The 17TSE II is just an amazing Lens (Also Manual Focus)
+1
I had the 14 and sold it. I have kept the 16-35 II, but I hardly ever use it. Last week I bought the 17 TS-E and played with it over the weekend. What a lens!! I have not looked at the filter solutions yet, but it seems there are alternatives that´s working.

Eldar, like eml58 I recently got the Fotodiox Wonderpana. It is very well made and the perfect solution for round filter use, I only got the CPL as that was all I really missed. The complimentary additional 66 "ears" for grad filter use are not a good design, you can't rotate them on the Wonderpana so have limited functionality. BUT Fotodiox just, within the last couple of days, announced a rotation monut for the 66 ears, if you need grad filter use I'd hold off until they also bring those to market for the 17, at the moment they only make them for the Nikon 14-24.

The big advantage of the Wonderpana over the much touted Lee system and home made work arounds is the Wonderpana allows full movements without vignetting.
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

nightbreath

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 456
    • View Profile
    • Свадебный фотограф в Днепропетровске
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #39 on: October 02, 2013, 03:06:50 AM »
The point is when choosing a lens, colour rendering and contrast are so easily adjusted now they shouldn't be an important factor in purchasing decisions.
It seems we're still on different pages. I have mentioned "vision", because I see difference in the original file. I have attached an example. Let me attach a sample photo later  :)

It would be great if you could add sample photos too.
Wedding photography. My personal website: http://luxuryphoto.com.ua

GMCPhotographics

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #40 on: October 02, 2013, 03:56:13 AM »
I did, I used two 14mm L's, both were a huge disappointment, I ended up getting the TS-E 17 and couldn't be happier, it is in a league all its own for landscape work, considerably better than either the 14 or 16-35. A two stitch 17 image using shift gives you an 11mm fov.

Completely agree with this.


I own the 14f/2.8 II & 16-35f/2.8 II, plus the Zeiss 15f/2.8, I think the Zeiss (Although Manual Focus) is ahead of the Canon 14 & 16-35 in IQ, The 17TSE II is just an amazing Lens (Also Manual Focus)
+1
I had the 14 and sold it. I have kept the 16-35 II, but I hardly ever use it. Last week I bought the 17 TS-E and played with it over the weekend. What a lens!! I have not looked at the filter solutions yet, but it seems there are alternatives that´s working.

Eldar, like eml58 I recently got the Fotodiox Wonderpana. It is very well made and the perfect solution for round filter use, I only got the CPL as that was all I really missed. The complimentary additional 66 "ears" for grad filter use are not a good design, you can't rotate them on the Wonderpana so have limited functionality. BUT Fotodiox just, within the last couple of days, announced a rotation monut for the 66 ears, if you need grad filter use I'd hold off until they also bring those to market for the 17, at the moment they only make them for the Nikon 14-24.

The big advantage of the Wonderpana over the much touted Lee system and home made work arounds is the Wonderpana allows full movements without vignetting.

I used to use lee grad filters heavily. My thoughts were, if Digital has a simular DR to slide, then slide methodologies were the way forward. I had hard, medium and soft grads, plus most of the stripe set and coloured grads. Then I learnt that I could use solid ND's to take two shots, one exposed for the sky and one exposed for the foreground. On a tripod naturally, with no movment between shots. I could decouple the need to shoot everything in one frame and then combine them in Photoshop later using layers and a soft brush. It totally revolutionised my landscape work and now I can shoot with less gear and better results. If I need a curved ND grad or a wobbly line grad....it's just a matter of post prod. Generally, it's a better technique and takes a lot less time over all to get great results.
I sold all my Lee gear (for a profit!) and bought a 16-35IIL out of the cash I accumulated. A double win in my books.
When I sourced potential filters for the TS-e 17L, a polariser and ND filters were my priority.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2780
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2013, 10:42:11 PM »
The point is when choosing a lens, colour rendering and contrast are so easily adjusted now they shouldn't be an important factor in purchasing decisions.
It seems we're still on different pages. I have mentioned "vision", because I see difference in the original file. I have attached an example. Let me attach a sample photo later  :)

It would be great if you could add sample photos too.

Ok, here is what I am talking about. I just did these images quickly for this thread, I used complete auto settings if I wanted more accuracy I could go into the calibration software and customise it to my hearts content.

I took two pictures of the same colour card in the same place, one with an EOS-M and compact fluorescent light bulb, the second with a 1Ds MkIII, 24-70 and a 600EX-RT. Those are the two left hand images, I then calibrated them and white balanced them and those two pictures are the two on the right. I think you will agree the two on the left are vastly dissimilar with very different colour characteristics, but the two on the right are very similar. This is not just a WB adjustment, the colour swatches change in relation to each other too.

I did not touch exposure, obviously the two images have a slightly different exposure as well.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2013, 10:44:26 PM by privatebydesign »
Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up.

scottkinfw

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 773
    • View Profile
    • kasden.smug.com
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2013, 01:55:42 AM »
Lovely!

Thank you.
I got mine today, and took a couple of test shots to be sure I didn't get a "lemon", given reports of quality control issues.  I can't wait to try it out this weekend.

sek

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.


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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2013, 01:55:42 AM »

scottkinfw

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 773
    • View Profile
    • kasden.smug.com
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2013, 02:03:59 AM »
Nightbreath- where may I see your pics?

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  ;)
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

Deva

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2013, 03:53:27 AM »
Since the idea of stitching 2 or more photos from a 17mm TS-E to create a landscape picture of 11mm FOV has come up several times in this thread, I have a question for those of you who have done this.

Obviously, it is better to clamp the lens to the tripod, so the camera, not the lens, physically moves when the lens is shifted - but for landscape work, is this necessary? Is there a dividing distance where you'd start to see an improvement if you clamped the lens?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?
« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2013, 03:53:27 AM »