I have the 16-35 II and am considering the 14 mm as an Mr. Bean christmas gift (from me to me). I would like to hear from someone who owns both. Is it an good idea? Can I then sell my 16-35?. Which one do you use most and why?
clausjepsen wrote:
I have the 16-35 II and am considering the 14 mm as an Mr. Bean christmas gift (from me to me). I would like to hear from someone who owns both. Is it an good idea? Can I then sell my 16-35?. Which one do you use most and why?
Hi clausjespen,
I have both but I love the 14mm on the 1dsmkIII. I seldom use the 16-35MKII but I love the 14mm as you can be so creative with this lens.
Here are some sample shots taken with the 14mm mkII
I have both as well, and I find the 16-35 II on the 1Ds Mark III is more flexible for what I shoot. I have the 14mm but rarely use it. 16mm is more than wide enough. Having said that, the photos above are very impressive.
I had the 16-35 II for a while and liked it, but after getting the 14L II, I put it up for sale and never looked back. If you like UWA lenses, the 14L is amazing. I absolutely love using that lens!
I guess I should mention a couple things I like so much about the 14L. I think first and foremost is the low distortion, but it's also very sharp, and it's pretty compact (especially compared to the 16-35 w/ hood). But it is a very expensive, specialized lens. I found that when I was using my 16-35, I mostly used it at 16mm anyway, but YMMV of course.
Thaks. My problem with 16-35 is the distorsion. If you accidently place a person close to the edge, then their head get enormous. I have heard that the 14 mm should be better.
I did have the 16-35 I, not the two but I bought the 14L II because of the overlap at the 24+ range, 16-35, 24TS, 24-70. I tried the 15 fish and its a neat lens, but I like the 14 better because its rectilinear. I expect I'll sell the 24TS when the new 24 II comes out, or look at the ZE21. I know its a tough decision otherwise you would not be asking us, but it boils down to you in the end.
Yep I know. David Zizer have a talk about sigma 12-24, maybe that would be a nice compagnion to the 16-35. And instead of paying 2000$ for the 14, Sigmas is arround 600 $
Yep I know. David Zizer have a talk about sigma 12-24, maybe that would be a nice compagnion to the 16-35. And instead of paying 2000$ for the 14, Sigmas is arround 600 $
I had the Sigma 12-24, and the lens I had was dramatically inferior to either the 14mm L or 16-35. I rented the 14mm L and will have to buy it some day. It is a really cool lens. The extra 2 mm is huge in the wide angle so I could see owning both the 14 and 16-35. I use a zeiss 18 so I borrow my wife's 16-35 if I need it.
clausjepsen wrote:
Thanks Pcho. The pics looks very impressive. Is it because the extra 2 mm or the quality, that you choose the 14 mm?
Hi clausjepsen,
I am really no expert but I find the extra 2mm is a big difference especially when you get down to the wide end. More importantly you get less distortion at the edges as compared to the 16-35MKII.
Look at the second last shot for instance, my lens was almost touching the stone and the building at the back is 150 feet away or more and it is still reasonably sharp at F2.8.
What I like about this lens is you can be very creative with it. I don't think there is anything wrong with the 16-35 but the 2mm is the difference. If you want fexibility get the 16-35 but if you want creativity, less distortion get the 14mm and you wont regret it
clausjepsen wrote:
I have the 16-35 II and am considering the 14 mm as an Mr. Bean christmas gift (from me to me). I would like to hear from someone who owns both. Is it an good idea? Can I then sell my 16-35?. Which one do you use most and why?
I've had a similar dilemma ever since the 14L II was announced.
Two mm FL gain over the 16-35L II is easy to grasp. The gain in IQ is a more difficult one to appreciate without actually using the lens. However, some people say the 14L II ain't much better IQ wise.
I might some day get one just because I am running out of interesting Canon's lenses which I could add to my modest collection.
I think first and foremost is the low distortion, but it's also very sharp, and it's pretty compact (especially compared to the 16-35 w/ hood). But it is a very expensive, specialized lens. I found that when I was using my 16-35, I mostly used it at 16mm anyway, but YMMV of course.