landscape lens advice

chrismoore

Hi, I'm hoping to solicit the opinions from anyone who has used either the Canon 14mm f/2.8L or the 24mm f/1.2L II, both primes obviously. I was looking at adding one of these to my lens lineup for landscape. Both have gotten great reviews and seem to be very sharp, and very fast. They seem to have less CA and more consistent focus, especially toward the edges of the frame than the 16-35.
Here's what I see as the advantages/disadvantages of each:
14mm f/2.8- good for wide angle shots, but maybe a little too wide? It is a curvilinear lens which prevents using UV or polarizing filters which I like to use.
24mm f/2.8 II- touted as the sharpest wide angle prime, significantly reduced CA, flare and consistent sharpness, can use filters, but maybe not wide enough?

I shoot FF with the 5D II, and currently my workhorse landscape lens is the 16-35 II. I'm not looking to replace it, just add a little to it for the right shots.

I'm torn right down the middle at this point and was hoping to get some input from someone who has actually used these lenses. I know they are not as versatile as the zooms in that category, but the optics do seem to be uncontested. A great site that shows cropped comparisons and great reviews of canon lenses is http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

Thanks for any and all advice you can provide
C

Duckys54

Have you ever tried using a program that analyzes your photos to see what your most common focal length?

chrismoore

Duckys54 wrote:

Have you ever tried using a program that analyzes your photos to see what your most common focal length?

No, is there a particular program you are referring to? The majority of my wide angle lansdscapes are shot in the 16-20mm range. When the setting is right (no wind, moving water, etc), I do like to stitch 3 vertical panos for higher resolution, which gives an output image ala 4x5 medium format. For those I use 25-30mm to minimize the distortion. I did also consider the tilt shift, though I hear it has a steep learning curve and with no AF composing shots takes significantly longer.

Duckys54

Offhand I can't recall what the name of it is, I'm thinking maybe Exposure Plot? But if you do a lot of panos to reduce distortion then I'd say either get the 24 or rent/borrow the T&S and give it a go.

bloomphotog

Get the Nikon 14-24 with an adapter. Sweetest wide angle zoom on the planet(I may be a little biased ).

Example:

chrismoore

Thanks for the advice. Looks like a great lens. I'm going to be testing the 14mm this week. It looks very similar to the lens you showed.

kdog

chrismoore wrote:

Thanks for the advice. Looks like a great lens. I'm going to be testing the 14mm this week. It looks very similar to the lens you showed.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html

Tango

IMO... whats to gain with the 14mm?, the 24mm should be offering you more in other areas, (i.e. panos )

bloomphotog

kdog wrote:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html

Great writeup! And that's the co. that sells the adapter BTW.

bloomphotog

AaronNelson wrote:

IMO... whats to gain with the 14mm?, the 24mm should be offering you more in other areas, (i.e. panos )

What the advantage? Well, 10mm to be exact. Which means taking a shot from very nice to breathtaking. The ultra-wide FOV is gorgeous.

chrismoore

AaronNelson wrote:

IMO... whats to gain with the 14mm?, the 24mm should be offering you more in other areas, (i.e. panos )

That's really the question I'm struggling with now and so am going to test the 14mm. I've also since decided to try the 24mm TS II. I've seen more favorable reviews of it than the 17mm, and am also curious to see what marc muench says when he writes his blog about those lenses. Having the 24 TS would eliminate the need for the regular 24mm prime. The 14mm would offer the wide angle to create comps with prominent FG subjects and DOF (ala David Muench) with what seems to be superior sharpness, less CA and vignetting when compared with the 16-35. I know that because it is of limited versatility that not many people use it and I was wondering if anyone had first hand experience. I have been very impressed by the canon primes for both portraits and landscapes. Here is a good review of the 14mm.

bloomphotog: I had not even considered using the nikon, that is a great review and I will look into it. Thanks!

kdog

AaronNelson wrote:

IMO... whats to gain with the 14mm?, the 24mm should be offering you more in other areas, (i.e. panos )

Couple of reasons. First, anything requiring a long exposure (and isn't that pretty much all the interesting shots we take?) is better accomplished with a single frame rather than a pano, especially with changing light or any motion in the scene. Take the following shot for example.



That's almost a 2 minute exposure at 10mm. Think those moving clouds would line up if you did that with a multiple-shot pano? :nah

Also, the wide-angle distortion (or as somebody else put it, "POV") makes for an interesting effect.

Also, 2 dimensional panos are a lot of work. In many cases you're not going to bother. Whereas with a wide-angle, you're much more likely fire off a few, and discover later that you got a killer shot in there that you weren't all that sure of when you shot it (happens to me all the time, and I'll bet you too.)

Cheers,
-joel

Tango

bloomphotog wrote:

What the advantage? Well, 10mm to be exact. Which means taking a shot from very nice to breathtaking. The ultra-wide FOV is gorgeous.

i was referring to his owning a 16mm already.... I dont need any debates

Tango

chrismoore wrote:

That's really the question I'm struggling with now and so am going to test the 14mm. I've also since decided to try the 24mm TS II. I've seen more favorable reviews of it than the 17mm, and am also curious to see what marc muench says when he writes his blog about those lenses. Having the 24 TS would eliminate the need for the regular 24mm prime. The 14mm would offer the wide angle to create comps with prominent FG subjects and DOF (ala David Muench) with what seems to be superior sharpness, less CA and vignetting when compared with the 16-35. I know that because it is of limited versatility that not many people use it and I was wondering if anyone had first hand experience. I have been very impressed by the canon primes for both portraits and landscapes. Here is a good review of the 14mm.

bloomphotog: I had not even considered using the nikon, that is a great review and I will look into it. Thanks!

no eazy choice. reflect on your perferred style.... then go spend a grand or two

chrismoore

AaronNelson wrote:

no eazy choice. reflect on your perferred style.... then go spend a grand or two

lol...would be nice not to have to make the decision and just get them all, right?
I guess everyone has their vice...

Pindy

What about the 24mm or 17mm TS-E? For landscapes a tilt-shift can be very useful.

Mind you, I own the Nikon 14-24 and it is indeed a stunning optic that performs beyond expectations.

Qarik

The nikkor 14-24mm is the greatest wide angles lens of all time and beats any prime. It is the muhammed ali of WA

here i steh ken rockwell review

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm

yeah it is ken rockewell so haha

bloomphotog

Qarik wrote:

The nikkor 14-24mm is the greatest wide angles lens of all time and beats any prime.

chrismoore

A quick comparison
Here's a quick comparison of the 14mm f/2.8L II, 16-35mm f/2.8L II and 24mm Tilt Shift f/3.5L II. IMO the biggest challenge for a lens is sharpness and CA around the edges of a frame. I quickly went out back at the office and fired off several shots with each lens (used a monopod), wide open and then at f/5.6. I then did a 100% crop of the extreme upper left of each frame. The tilt shift comp is a little different just cause of its focal length but it is the same tree branches. It pretty much confirmed what I suspected about the hierarchy of optical quality. Images are out of the camera, no sharpening or other post.

First, wide open:







Now at f/5.6

bloomphotog

chrismoore wrote:

Here's a quick comparison of the 14mm f/2.8L, 16-35mm f/2.8L and 24mm Tilt Shift f/3.5L II. .......

Wow, that tilt shift is nice! The 14 and zoom look decent at f5.6.

jdryan3

kdog wrote:

Couple of reasons. First, anything requiring a long exposure (and isn't that pretty much all the interesting shots we take?) is better accomplished with a single frame rather than a pano, especially with changing light or any motion in the scene. Take the following shot for example.



That's almost a 2 minute exposure at 10mm. Think those moving clouds would line up if you did that with a multiple-shot pano? :nah

Also, the wide-angle distortion (or as somebody else put it, "POV") makes for an interesting effect.

Also, 2 dimensional panos are a lot of work. In many cases you're not going to bother. Whereas with a wide-angle, you're much more likely fire off a few, and discover later that you got a killer shot in there that you weren't all that sure of when you shot it (happens to me all the time, and I'll bet you too.)

Cheers,
-joel

Hey! I know that shot. Pitch black to the eye. Gotta love those long exposures to bring out ambient light you don't "see".

On topic, I love my 17-40 and went for it over the 16-35 since most of what I shoot with it is slower than even f/4. And when I shoot landscapes like kdog's I'm on a tripod and a really fast lens is moot.

That said, I love my 35 f/1.4L for fast, low light, handheld shots.