September 16, 2014, 01:01:40 AM

Author Topic: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8  (Read 9562 times)

AndreiD

  • Guest
Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« on: July 18, 2012, 10:20:15 AM »
Hello people,

Been lurking around this site watching various posts from time to time. I got a new 5d mark iii and my current lens set-up consists in a 24-105 (kit lens from my mk ii), 50L, 100-400L. I'm thinking of buying a wider lens than what can offer the 24-105 at the widest setting.

So which one would you recommend if any? Or stick to the 24?

PS: I'm amateur (ie i don't make money out of this).

Cheers

canon rumors FORUM

Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« on: July 18, 2012, 10:20:15 AM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14349
    • View Profile
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2012, 10:23:43 AM »
14L is a specialist lens - it's challenging to compose shots and have them succeed (just 'wide' isn't usually visually impactful).  When they do, it's great, though.

The 16-35L II is a versatile lens, great as a UWA lens. 

What do you plan to shoot?  If you will be using it for static subjects like landscapes, the 17-40mm is not bad when stopped down to f/8-11 (not too different from the 16-35 II at those narrow apertures), and it's a lot cheaper.

Personally, I chose the 16-35 II and I'm quite happy with it.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

AndreiD

  • Guest
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2012, 10:29:19 AM »
14L is a specialist lens - it's challenging to compose shots and have them succeed (just 'wide' isn't usually visually impactful).  When they do, it's great, though.

The 16-35L II is a versatile lens, great as a UWA lens. 

What do you plan to shoot?  If you will be using it for static subjects like landscapes, the 17-40mm is not bad when stopped down to f/8-11 (not too different from the 16-35 II at those narrow apertures), and it's a lot cheaper.

Personally, I chose the 16-35 II and I'm quite happy with it.
Hello

Thanks for your reply. I'll be shooting mostly landscapes and scenery. Yeah i see that the 14 is a heck of a lot more expensive. The same can be said between what you recommended the 17-40 and the 16-35, half the price!

The thing is the 17-40 has the largest aperture in 4 as the same 24-105, case in which the sole gain in paying for another lens is the difference between 24 to wider 17mm. Correct?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 10:31:26 AM by AndreiD »

RunAndGun

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
    • View Profile
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2012, 10:37:48 AM »
I played with both lenses from CPS before I purchased.  I own the 16-35. It's a more versatile lens and honestly I think you'll get more use out of it than the 14mm. The 14mm is kind of a niche/specialty lens. I LOVE shooting WA stuff and that's why I bought the 8-15mm, but even I don't pull it out THAT much because it's not for everything(same for the 14mm). I'm not saying it's not a god lens or a FUN lens, but after the newness wears off, I don't think it will get used nearly as much as the 16-35mm.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14349
    • View Profile
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2012, 10:51:58 AM »
The thing is the 17-40 has the largest aperture in 4 as the same 24-105, case in which the sole gain in paying for another lens is the difference between 24 to wider 17mm. Correct?

Well, yes...but the difference between 24mm and 17mm is a big difference...
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3446
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2012, 11:02:20 AM »
The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.

It's a shame canon hasn't made the 14-24L by now. It would render these previous two obsolete.

If your really serious on shooting wide, the new zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best thing I've ever seen. Even better than the 14-24 Nikon but with a 3000$ price tag. If you want to go ultra-wide, why compromise?

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
    • View Profile
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2012, 01:02:01 PM »
The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.

It's a shame canon hasn't made the 14-24L by now. It would render these previous two obsolete.

If your really serious on shooting wide, the new zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best thing I've ever seen. Even better than the 14-24 Nikon but with a 3000$ price tag. If you want to go ultra-wide, why compromise?

+1.  However, for an amateur, I'd go 17-40L if it's casual landscape photography.  If you need it for other purposes, get the 16-35L.  There is no reason to spend so much on a prime (the 14L) if you are an amateur, unless you have a deep pocket.  However, I use the 16-35L for landscape because I also shoot low light indoor with it.  If I didn't shoot low-light indoor, I'd have the 17-40L.  Just my opinion.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2012, 01:02:01 PM »

Razor2012

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
    • View Profile
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2012, 04:45:11 PM »
The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.

It's a shame canon hasn't made the 14-24L by now. It would render these previous two obsolete.

If your really serious on shooting wide, the new zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best thing I've ever seen. Even better than the 14-24 Nikon but with a 3000$ price tag. If you want to go ultra-wide, why compromise?

+1.  However, for an amateur, I'd go 17-40L if it's casual landscape photography.  If you need it for other purposes, get the 16-35L.  There is no reason to spend so much on a prime (the 14L) if you are an amateur, unless you have a deep pocket.  However, I use the 16-35L for landscape because I also shoot low light indoor with it.  If I didn't shoot low-light indoor, I'd have the 17-40L.  Just my opinion.

Isn't the 16-35 alittle sharper than the 17-40?
5D MKIII w grip, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 2.8L II, 100 2.8L IS macro, 600EX-RT

Axilrod

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1373
    • View Profile
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2012, 07:03:55 PM »
I have both, I'd go for the 16-35 first, it's more versatile and a great lens overall.  I only picked up the 14L II because it was $1100 in mint condition which is a ridiculously good deal.  It's fun and very sharp for a UWA lens, but I think you'd get more use out of the 16-35mm.

Depending on how wide you really want to go it may be worth checking out the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 or the 21mm f/2.8, they are both super sharp and have excellent color rendition, MF only but awesome lenses, I love the 21 (but not sure if that's quite wide enough for you).
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
    • View Profile
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2012, 07:27:43 PM »
The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.

It's a shame canon hasn't made the 14-24L by now. It would render these previous two obsolete.

If your really serious on shooting wide, the new zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best thing I've ever seen. Even better than the 14-24 Nikon but with a 3000$ price tag. If you want to go ultra-wide, why compromise?

+1.  However, for an amateur, I'd go 17-40L if it's casual landscape photography.  If you need it for other purposes, get the 16-35L.  There is no reason to spend so much on a prime (the 14L) if you are an amateur, unless you have a deep pocket.  However, I use the 16-35L for landscape because I also shoot low light indoor with it.  If I didn't shoot low-light indoor, I'd have the 17-40L.  Just my opinion.

Isn't the 16-35 alittle sharper than the 17-40?

Wide open sure.  But stopped down they get very close.  For a long-term investment, sure the 16-35L II is the best buy.  It will do the landscape AND the low-light stuff.  The price is double the 17-40L I believe.  I bought the 16-35L II because I knew I'd keep it for both. 
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

Razor2012

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 639
    • View Profile
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2012, 07:57:57 PM »
The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.

It's a shame canon hasn't made the 14-24L by now. It would render these previous two obsolete.

If your really serious on shooting wide, the new zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best thing I've ever seen. Even better than the 14-24 Nikon but with a 3000$ price tag. If you want to go ultra-wide, why compromise?

+1.  However, for an amateur, I'd go 17-40L if it's casual landscape photography.  If you need it for other purposes, get the 16-35L.  There is no reason to spend so much on a prime (the 14L) if you are an amateur, unless you have a deep pocket.  However, I use the 16-35L for landscape because I also shoot low light indoor with it.  If I didn't shoot low-light indoor, I'd have the 17-40L.  Just my opinion.

Isn't the 16-35 alittle sharper than the 17-40?

Wide open sure.  But stopped down they get very close.  For a long-term investment, sure the 16-35L II is the best buy.  It will do the landscape AND the low-light stuff.  The price is double the 17-40L I believe.  I bought the 16-35L II because I knew I'd keep it for both.

Well maybe someday Canon will bring out a 14-24.   ;)
5D MKIII w grip, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 2.8L II, 100 2.8L IS macro, 600EX-RT

bdunbar79

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
    • View Profile
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2012, 08:26:42 PM »
I could actually go for a 14-24L.  That would go in my kit for sure.
2 x 1DX
Big Ten, GLIAC, NCAC

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1541
    • View Profile
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2012, 09:15:19 PM »
The thing is the 17-40 has the largest aperture in 4 as the same 24-105, case in which the sole gain in paying for another lens is the difference between 24 to wider 17mm. Correct?
Well, yes...but the difference between 24mm and 17mm is a big difference...

I own both the 17-40 f/4 & the 24-105 f/4IS. The 17-40 at f/4 is mushy and for emergency use only. It kicks in nicely at f/5.6 and from f/8-f/11 is a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II. However the 24-105 f/4 is very sharp, competent and trustworthy at f/4.

To the OP, I'd be choosing a zoom for it's brilliant versatility. If you're shooting landscapes at f/8-f/11 the 17-40 will deliver the goods. If you need wide open capability, then the 16-35 should be your choice. If your budget is strong, the killer landscape lenses are the very new super high IQ 17mm tilt/shift and 24mmII tilt/shift.

PW

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2012, 09:15:19 PM »

JPL_1020

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2012, 10:54:54 PM »
I'd say get the 16-35mm, it is versatile like everyone is saying. As for the idea of getting 17-40mm instead, I'd say go for the 16-35mm if you have the money. You can easily out grow the 17-40 because of it's limitations -- IQ and aperture wise.

Buy right the first time, it'll hurt a bit but it really is the way to go. Remember, lenses are the eyes of your camera. 8)

@!ex

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
    • View Profile
    • My portfolio
Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2012, 01:11:20 AM »
I find that a lot of photographers try to get zooms that seamlessly cover a really wide range of focal lengths, in fact I did the same exact thing after I got my first DSLR.  I was shooting Pentax at the time, but I got zooms that covered 16-200mm (DA* lenses, which is the pentax equivalent to L glass).  This idea seems to make sense from the stand point that you will be able to frame any scene that you come across and will always have a focal range to cover anything you want.  Over time I realized that this logic is not reality (at least for me) and in fact this setup lead to much less creativity and fewer impactful, signature shots.  There are a few reasons for this.  1) I find that even if I have a full range of focal lengths I am only really be able to "think" and see in subsets of these ranges, and I find that if given the chance to zoom in or out I would often take the safest, most simple composition, which is often boring and usually not that creative.  I'm not really sure why this is the case, but it is unmistakeable.  I always ended up with fewer original/creative compositions when working with zooms, but if I'm forced to a single focal range I end up much more creative, and able to predict and thus "see" more as I walk around.  2) Zoom Lenses are a hell of a lot heavier and bulkier (compare the 16-35 with the 14 L II) which makes them a hell of a lot more of a pain in the ass to carry around multiple lenses, so you often only end up taking a single lens which limits you as well.  I am muchh more likely to carry two relatively light primes, than a couple zooms, so if I carry a 14mm and a 50mm, I actually cover a lot more focal ranges than a single 16-35.  3) Optically they are alway going to be inferior to prime lenses, both in sharpness, color, and speed.  Not only that, but I find that in order to get images that stand out from the crowd, using extreme unique glass helps quite a bit, as it gives you a different perspective than is possible with standard zooms, due to the speed and focal length of the lens.  I guess I might be a bit different than most, but I want images that are as unique as I can get, they are just more interesting to me, and that is much easier to obtain using unique tools.

When I switched to Canon a month or so ago, I decided to take a new approach to glass.  I was just going to buy my favorite prime lenses as fast as possible and stay away from zooms for the most part (I do have a 70-200, for sports shooting though).  So my main kit has been the 50 1.2L and the amazing 14mm LII.  First off optically the 14mm is crazy sharp all the way to the corners, with great color, and surprisingly low distortions.  I actually bought the sigma 12-24 first as it is the widest available FF lens, and I have had great luck with both sigma lenses I have previously owned (8-16 and 10-20 for crop cameras).  But the 12-24 was horribly soft and I returned it immediately for the 14mm.  I must say I had a bit of sticker shock at first, but it was worth it because it is truly an extremely unique piece of glass.  I can't really tell you how much I like it as it is so versatile.  It is crazy fast so I can handhold bracket images indoors (which is amazing for me as I used to have to lug a tripod which can be dangerous and slow when urban exploring), and it also can be stopped down for landscapes.  Shooting ultra wide is not for the faint of heart and takes a lot of practice and mastery before you can see in 14mm, but if you want a fun adventure I would highly recommend it.  This is all I can really say, so maybe I'll just show some images I've got with it the last few weeks to make my point.


Supper by @!ex, on Flickr


Out Back by @!ex, on Flickr


Inner Diameter by @!ex, on Flickr


Bad Oasis by @!ex, on Flickr


Mile High 'Murica by @!ex, on Flickr


Waiting for Tomorrow by @!ex, on Flickr


Chipping Away by @!ex, on Flickr


The Plunge by @!ex, on Flickr


Perspective by @!ex, on Flickr


Drought by @!ex, on Flickr


Ionic Jail by @!ex, on Flickr


Sunset and County by @!ex, on Flickr


Power Sources by @!ex, on Flickr
« Last Edit: July 19, 2012, 01:19:26 AM by @!ex »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8
« Reply #14 on: July 19, 2012, 01:11:20 AM »