Rumors > Lenses

16-35mm f/2.8L v. 14mm f/2.8L

(1/2) > >>

lbloom:
Is there any advantage of the 14mm L lens over the 16-35mm L lens (other than 2mm wider focal length)? Both are f/2.8, and the 14mm is barely wider. Is it that big a deal to make someone turn down the 16-35mm?

bvukich:
If you don't already know you want/need the 14/2.8, then the 16-35/2.8 is probably what you're looking for.

But if you know you want/need the 14/2.8, then the 16-35/2.8 is in no way a substitute.

neuroanatomist:

--- Quote from: lbloom on April 27, 2011, 01:25:51 PM ---Is there any advantage of the 14mm L lens over the 16-35mm L lens (other than 2mm wider focal length)? Both are f/2.8, and the 14mm is barely wider.

--- End quote ---

If you need the extra 2mm, then it's an advantage.  The difference between 16mm and 14mm is greater than it sounds.  The 14mm f/2.8 is also a prime, which generally means better IQ (in this specific comparison, sharper corners, less vignetting, and less CA). 

epsiloneri:
At 14mm, 2mm is a big deal. I have the 14/2.8L II for special applications (mostly northern lights and wide-field astrophoto), and it works very well (although the much cheaper 15/2.8 fisheye does a good job as well). The 16-35/2.8L II is much more versatile for general ultra-wide photography (I haven't used it), so that is probably a much more useful lens unless you have specific applications in mind.

For a detailed comparison, you can check out the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Review at the-digital-picture.com.

bvukich:
Just realized my above post is nearly useless without a why...

I'm at work, so don't have a ton of time to explain why.  This should be a good starting point: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm  Although 14mm isn't really ultra-wide on a crop sensor.

There are also a ton of people here that are way more knowledgeable than me that will probably chime in.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page