I've been thinking about the viability of using only two lenses to cover a wide, wide range: 16-35L II and 35-350L, which would provide a whopping 16-350mm!
Then I got to wondering about including the 14/2.8 Rokinon (Samyang) that I've been playing with. How much different is it than the 16mm setting on the zoom? How does its quality compare to the 16mm?
It turns out that there is quite a bit more angle of view with the 14 compared to the 16.
Here are the first two series of shots using the full range of 14-350mm. All shots hand held with 1Ds2, f/5.6, ISO 400 (sharpness of some 250-350mm setting suffered slightly from vibration).
Please feel free to post any of your focal length range comparisons!
Gunzorro wrote:
I've been thinking about the viability of using only two lenses to cover a wide, wide range: 16-35L II and 35-350L, which would provide a whopping 16-350mm!
Then I got to wondering about including the 14/2.8 Rokinon (Samyang) that I've been playing with. How much different is it than the 16mm setting on the zoom? How does its quality compare to the 16mm?
It turns out that there is quite a bit more angle of view with the 14 compared to the 16.
Precisely the reason I'm keeping the Sigma 14mm on board despite getting a 16-35 II. I believe the difference in angle of view is logarithmic, not linear. When I first got the Sigma it struck me as having a different kind of perspective than the 17-35 L that I had at the time. Difficult to explain, I understand, but it seemed to be "bending" stuff at the edges more, giving a much more pronounced UWA look. And even though it's not terribly sharp at the edges until f/9 or thereabouts it's a lot of fun to use.
Thing is, the 14mm has to be used very carefully, it takes more of an expert to use than a 16mm which is still hardly simple to use effectively. I personally don't think that I could make a 14mm perspective sing without a lot of effort.
Brian -- It's the Simi Valley Town Center on a rare overcast day -- looks more like Seattle, huh?
Beni -- I haven't found any particular problem composing with the 14mm. Then again, I like the 15mm FE too! It is about subject choice, so I wouldn't use any UWA for baby photography.
*************
BTW -- I didn't do any CA or distortion correction (intentionally) on any of these, with a rare exception to see how the 35 on the 16-35 compared to the 35 on the 35-350. I used all 35/35-350 samples here. LR3 lens profiles for 14/2.8L v.1, 16-35L II, and 28-300L were used, but no further vignetting correction.
I've actually gotten quite good results at 350mm. Here's a 3.58MB JPG @ f/8 from the crop sensor 1D Mark II (effective 455mm), along with two 100% crops. Granted, it's not perfect, but totally usable for me. I could get better rez by shooting RAW with a higher MP body.
Be sure to get your 14mm Samyang somewhere where you can easily return it. i bought one, and it was the most awful lens I've hever owned, and I've owned many dozens of lenses.
Obviously, it had something wrong with it, but I had to pay shipping both ways for something that was not my fault.
My Canon 15mm FE that I bought for $250 used has a wider field of view and was a lot sharper.
scalesusa -- I hear what you are saying. I've already gone through a return of my previous Bell + Howell branded 14/2.8. I've explained my findings in the Alt forum thread on Samyang 14mm. Basically, the focus ring is way off, but once you have established the exact and true points of various distances on the Rokinon replacement, it works fine. At least that was for my situation. Infinity was eventually determined to be at the 10' mark (about 7' on the B+H). Elite Brands is located in NJ for North American warranty. These two 14mm lenses are easily among the sharpest I've owned, barring the focus range markings. I don't know what your problem was, but most owners are very happy with the IQ. I agree about the Canon 15/2.8 FE (great deal for you!), but it is a FE, not a rectilinear lens.
Gunzorro wrote:
I've actually gotten quite good results at 350mm. Here's a 3.58MB JPG @ f/8 from the crop sensor 1D Mark II (effective 455mm), along with two 100% crops. Granted, it's not perfect, but totally usable for me. I could get better rez by shooting RAW with a higher MP body.
Well, it's an L after all - no one would expect it to fall apart at the long end like some cheap 75-300 junk. Great lens either way.
Ha-ha! Funny you mention that -- I once had the better 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, and it was still pretty bad. The 70-300 IS was not the worst, but this 35-350L is clearly superior.
Thanks to the OP for this comparison. Currently my widest lenses for my 5D II are the 24-105 and 35 L. I had a 17-40 but I ended up selling it. I don't want to spend a lot of money for an UWA, but it seems the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm might work for occasional UWA shots. Even without zoom, seems like there is a decent amount of room for cropping if necessary.
