Canon 14mm f/2.8L vs 16-35mm f/2.8L?

Candid Arts

Has anyone used these lenses side by side? I'm looking to see how much of an actual difference 2mm makes? I'm on a 50D, so I have the 1.6x crop factor.

I've used the 14mm quite a bit, and love how wide it is, but if the 16 is damn close to that, and I can get a little zoom out of it, would it be more worth while to get the 16-35?

I currently have the 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 60mm f/2.8 Macro, and I think will be getting the 70-200 f/2.8L IS soon (Christmas).

But I will be going on a winter break to Alaska for three weeks and want to get some landscape and skyscape (stars/northern lights) shots, and am wondering which would be best to rent for a better all around lens.

So...what do you guy's think? 14 2.8L vs 16-35 2.8L?

I will be going into Pro Photo to do a demo my self, but wanted to get some other peoples' opinion as well.

Thanks guys (and gals)

Robinivich

Since you already have a good variety of lenses, and a crop camera, have you considered the EF-S 10-22mm? On a 1.6 crop camera this is as close to perfection as you're going to get (IMHO) Very sharp, no issues that can't be easily corrected in post prossessing. And of course, very wide, if you liked the 14mm field of view, wait till you see 10mm. And of course it zooms out to 22mm.

The tradeoffs are that you lose ~1 stop of aperture (no biggie in a lens this wide, believe me) and it's not built like a tank (it is no slouch however). In exchange you get a lens that's way better suited to your camera, it does what the 16-35 was designed to do on a 1ds or 5d. Also, in the highly likely event that you're hooked, it's 1/3 the price of the 14mm, and 1/2 the price of the 16-35.

Of course this doesn't make much of a difference if the place you're renting from doesn't offer it, but I'm certain there are some that do.

Here's a recent favourite of mine with the 10-22 @10mm



Hope this helps!

roentarre

I thought 14mm f2.8 is just way too expensive comparing to 16-35mm f2.8 while that 2mm is truely trivial even this is coming from a landscape kind of guy.

Nikon on the other hand has 14-24mm which is just simply outstanding, outperforming canon 14mm at every way.

I would stick to the zoom instead

Candid Arts

Yeah I've been looking at the 10-22 also, because yes, it's so wide.

But I love the fixed aperture on the 14 and 16-35 as I'm trying to get all my stuff in the fixed aperture range and also the L series glass. I've heard that the 10-22 isn't that great of a lens as far as sharpness and color goes, but that picture you posted is beautiful, so I'm re-thinking that.

The difference between the 10 and 16 I'm sure would be quite the difference, but the L and 2.8 vs. 3.5-4.5...I'd rather have L and 2.8. I think if I did more architectural photography, the 10 would benefit, which I might be doing more of for my work soon. I've done some with my 17-85 IS, and that's worked alright, so the 16 wouldn't be much of a difference, but the 10 definitely would.

Hmmm...I dunno. Both? haha. Oh yeah, no $$$...:cry

Robinivich

Candid Arts wrote:

Yeah I've been looking at the 10-22 also, because yes, it's so wide.

But I love the fixed aperture on the 14 and 16-35 as I'm trying to get all my stuff in the fixed aperture range and also the L series glass. I've heard that the 10-22 isn't that great of a lens as far as sharpness and color goes, but that picture you posted is beautiful, so I'm re-thinking that.

The difference between the 10 and 16 I'm sure would be quite the difference, but the L and 2.8 vs. 3.5-4.5...I'd rather have L and 2.8. I think if I did more architectural photography, the 10 would benefit, which I might be doing more of for my work soon. I've done some with my 17-85 IS, and that's worked alright, so the 16 wouldn't be much of a difference, but the 10 definitely would.

Hmmm...I dunno. Both? haha. Oh yeah, no $$$...:cry

Ahh, the indecision... I can sympathize, I'm trying to pick a telezoom, but don't have the $$ to get the 70-200 2.8 IS...

Maybe you've already found it but http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/ has some very informative reviews of all the lenses you're looking at.

Some final thoughts to bear in mind, the 14mm can't use normal filters, while the 16-35 can, but uses size 82mm, and the 10-22 can use the same filters as your 24-105 and 70-200.

As concerns aperture in an ultra wide angle lens, most of the time you're stopped down so everything is in focus, but occasionally you do want blur, in which case the 10-22 still can slightly blur the background when you're focused fairly close. The biggest advantage I can see for the f2.8 aperture is that in dark venues you'll be able to stop motion in less light, which is certainly enough for the photojournalist crowd I expect.

I'd say don't let the "non L" build and f3.5-4.5 turn you off a fantastic lens, but ultimately of course I don't think you'll be unhappy with any of these lenses.

timnosenzo

I had the 16-35L MKII, bought a 14L MKII, and quickly sold the 16-35. The 14L was just that much better.

That said, I would have a hard time buying either of those lenses for a crop body. They're both VERY expensive, and a 50D is essentially cropping off the best parts of them. Personally I would pick up a used 5D and get the most out of those very expensive, UWA lenses.

Candid Arts

Reading what you guy's said, and the reviews posted on that link, I think I'm going to go with the 10-22. I really don't want to start getting the variable aperture's and non-L glass lenses though, but I think in this instance, it's the better way to go.

Thanks everyone for your input. Now I just need some $...any body got any extra?