I have a hard time visualizing how wide 14mm is. I shoot mostly landscape/nature, and really enjoy the 17-19mm range. I'm also trying to shoot mostly primes and have been getting rid of my zooms. I do plan on either keeping a 24-105 or swapping it for a 24-70. I also have the 35mm/1.4L which has considerable use as a walk-around city lens and for some indoor shots.
I don't think that 24mm will be wide enough for me and I know I like 17-19mm. I also understand, though, that a 3-5mm difference at the wide end makes a huge difference. If I'm happy with 17mm, will 14mm be "too wide"? If so, the 16-35 would seem to make more sense, but I'm already covered at 24mm and 35mm, and would rather have the IQ of a prime over zoom. Oh, Canon... where is your 16mm or 18mm prime?
The 16-35 is cheaper and just as fast, but it's a zoom that I already have covered other than at the wide end.
Any comments, anecdotes, preferences, etc. on the 14mm vs 16-35, or something else from Sigma, etc?
It's a lot of money for a pretty specialized FL, but it would be wonderful on the 5D II. I find 17mm plenty wide on the 5D and I agree it's not worth moving to the 16-35 for landscape work. Have you considered a third party prime like a Zeiss 18 f/3.5 or the legendary 21 f/2.8. The latter is the best WA about and the resolution even wide open is excellent. There is a ZE version coming this year for Canon and it'll be cheaper than the 14 f/2.8L II. Manual focus is not an issue for landscape anyway.
Other options to look at are the Tamron 14 f/2.8 or Sigma 14 f/2.8. The Tamron gets good reviews, although It's not in the 14L II league, but's it a lot cheaper.
Oh and I forgot the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. It can be used on Canon with an adapter and the results are wonderful, almost as good as the Zeiss 21. It's cheaper than the Canon 14L II and a lot more versatile and has better IQ according to most.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
It's a lot of money for a pretty specialized FL, but it would be wonderful on the 5D II. I find 17mm plenty wide on the 5D and I agree it's not worth moving to the 16-35 for landscape work. Have you considered a third party prime like a Zeiss 18 f/3.5 or the legendary 21 f/2.8.
Yeah, being happy at 17mm on the 17-40 makes me not really want to spend the extra $$ for 14mm, but the next prime up is 24mm.
I've been thinking about the announced Zeiss lenses. 18mm or 21mm might be worth the wait.
icaro2005 wrote:
I just received this 14 mm L 2 and it is a real delight on my 5D2.
Pat
Pat,
Your second shot is the type of shooting I'd be using WA for. I was concerned that it would mess with the perspective too much, but that looks good to me!
---
One of the earlier links pointed to somebody using 14mm as "get close to your subject", and I'd be using it in just the opposite manner. I may end up with some indoor or "get close" shots, but the primary purpose would be WA nature/landscape. There are many comments/reviews about the MkII being much better than the original. Is this in a "get close to your subject" context or landscape (or both?).
I've looked at the Nikon lens and, if I'm looking at the right one, it's about $1,600 which is getting pretty close to the cost of a MkII in any case. The Canon 16-35 is a little cheaper, but I'd really like to go with a prime at the extreme ends (WA and telephoto) and keep just the 24-70 or 24-105 as the only zoom for "general purpose"
Its so hard to tell how wide the 14mm lens is from samples of outdoor scenery. If you took those same photos with a 16mm, 20mm, or 24mm they would all look the same pretty much.
I would love to see some photos of people taken at 14mm. I shoot a lot of events at 16mm and I have considered buying the 14mm for this type of thing.
)