14mm mk2 or 16-35 mk2?

[Mick]

Just wondered if anyone out there had the 16-35 which I use and bought the 14mm and loved/hated the prime? Im doing a lot of landscapes just now, love the zoom but im always shooting 16mm and wondered if you noticed any difference with the extra 2mm and any sharpness differences. I love my 16-35 but its a zoom, an excellent zoom, but as im always wide open that extra 2mm is tempting.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[TommyLee]

I had the 16-35 II for a few yrs ...and rented the 14L II twice..
finally I bought it...
I love it...

kept the 16-35...but use it less...

with the 14L II, sigma 35 and Canon 85L II ...I find that I like those primes....
even though the zoom is still nice....and usefull

14 has more CA/fringing, not as good bokeh qual (IMO) but 14 is sharper all over ...especially edges... and very low distortion... 2mm is a LOT....

I doubt I can sell the 16-35 unless I decide to get down to 3 lenses or so...

...I keep the 24-105 for a very good general purpose walkaround....

I find I am not using my 70-200 II much... but my activity is changed lately...good optic

so for ME the 14L is the wide extension of a kit ...or the 135L is the long extension of a kit (leaving out the 70-200

again I love my 14L and walk around with just this ...or maybe a 35 sig or a 100macro as a second lens...

TOM

 

[dave]

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.

Totally agree with this.

 

[pwp]

If landscapes are your main priority, the 17 TS-E would deliver in spades. If you need the flexibility to take on a range of subjects, then the 16-35 f/2.8II will have it's rewards too. Make no mistake, this is a fine lens.

The 14mm f/2.8II has an awesome reputation, but of course is limited in the sort of subjects you can tackle with it. 14 mm is very wide and may leave you feeling a bit restricted as a general purpose ultrawide. It needs to be used with great care. Definitely rent before you buy. And don't be tempted by a 14 mm f/2.8 MkI...most of them were shockers and are best avoided.

The 17 TS-E can give you a 10mm equivalent spread if you don't mind stitching you landscapes. On a good tripod, just using the lateral shift, you do one exposure in the centre, shift left and shoot, shift right and shoot and you'll have three frames that will stitch perfectly. The 17 TS-E is the landscape shooters new best friend. There is plenty to read if you're willing to search.

-pw

 

[Viggo]

I loved my 14, plain and simple. Awesome color and contrast, very straight and great AF even at mfd.

But for landscapes filter use will always be an issue with the 14 and the TS17. While IMO the 17 is by far the best uwa I have ever owned, it's not easy like the 1635 when it comes to filter use.

 

[nightbreath]

Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?

 

[eli452]

I loved my 14, plain and simple. Awesome color and contrast, very straight and great AF even at mfd.

But for landscapes filter use will always be an issue with the 14 and the TS17. While IMO the 17 is by far the best uwa I have ever owned, it's not easy like the 1635 when it comes to filter use.

Actually there is a new LEE Adaptor Ring for Canon 17mm TS-E Lens
http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system#tse-adaptor

 

[pwp]

Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?

For wedding reportage work I wouldn't be without the flexibility that a zoom offers.
So vs the 14mm f/2.8II and the 17 TS-E being discussed on this thread, it's got to be the 16-35 f/2.8II all the way.

-pw

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?

For wedding reportage work I wouldn't be without the flexibility that a zoom offers.
So vs the 14mm f/2.8II and the 17 TS-E being discussed on this thread, it's got to be the 16-35 f/2.8II all the way.

-pw

I agree, as I look through my LightRoom catalogue, over my last 10 weddings...I've used my 16-35IIL for an average of 250 shots per wedding (ie 2.5K shots taken) against 27 shots over the same period in total for my TS-e 17L. I've used my fisheye 8-15L for around 10 shots per wedding, so that's three times as much...not bad for an affects lens. my TS-e 17L is a very low use lens for me, I use it for very specific reasons. While I take it to every wedding, it only comes out in very specific circumstances. I use it more far for my Landscape work, but I stil prefer to use my 16-35IIL if I can, it's a lot more versatile and field flexible.

 

[privatebydesign]

Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?

As the others have said the 16-35 no question. I always take the 15mm fisheye to weddings too, this gives a unique looking shot but also defished is wider than the 16-35 and, in my experience, better than the 14mm L. Unless you are using film, in which case colours are a non issue, colours are a non issue, that is what camera profiles and the vibrance slider are for.

I loved my 14, plain and simple. Awesome color and contrast, very straight and great AF even at mfd.

But for landscapes filter use will always be an issue with the 14 and the TS17. While IMO the 17 is by far the best uwa I have ever owned, it's not easy like the 1635 when it comes to filter use.

Actually there is a new LEE Adaptor Ring for Canon 17mm TS-E Lens
http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system#tse-adaptor

And the Fotodiox WonderPana 145

http://fotodioxpro.com/index.php/wonderpana-145-essentials-kit-system-holder-lens-cap-and-cpl-filter.html
http://www.amazon.com/WonderPana-145-Essentials-Kit-Aspherical/dp/B00AUK945M/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1378870716&sr=8-2&keywords=fotodiox+TS-E

After a thread last week I have ordered one.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16813.15

 

[bluegreenturtle]

Why don't you pick up the samyang/rokinon 14mm 2.8 which is only a few hundred $$ and try that one out. I think the optics in it are generally considered to be similar to the canon in IQ.

 

[RGF]

Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?

I have had all 3 -no question the 17 TS-e is sharper but when you need to go wide the 14 is the way to go. Find 14 prints hold up 16x24 and 20x30. Have not tried bigger - have not tried much stitching with the 17 TS-e , bm ajar drawback is size of the lens. Often will go with w 24-70 and find a place place to squeeze the 14 into my pack.

 

[nightbreath]

Great to see feedback on both lenses! Though could you please expand your thoughts on the wedding reportage field? What do you think is better from a wedding photographer perspective (sharpness is less important than colors for me)?

For wedding reportage work I wouldn't be without the flexibility that a zoom offers.
So vs the 14mm f/2.8II and the 17 TS-E being discussed on this thread, it's got to be the 16-35 f/2.8II all the way.

-pw

Thank you for your input

I primarily use the widest available setting on my current 17-40, so it's 14mm vs. 16mm on the corresponding lenses

Do anyone has observations on such characteristics as: color, contrast, etc?..

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[cayenne]

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

 

[AudioGlenn]

I like the 14mm but I think I want the flexibility of the 16-35 II.

 

[Eldar]

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.

 

[scottkinfw]

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]

 

[Frodo]

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.