Hard Lense Decision

[twinrivers19]

I have been shooting all of my landscapes with the 24-105L, but I am going to buy a faster, wider angle landscape lense, but cannot
decide between the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and the 14mm f/2.8L prime lense. What are the real differences, besides the fact that one is a zoom
and the other a prime? Sharpness differences? Color? Also, I am shooting with a full-frame 6D. My thinking right now is the 16-35 because it gives
me more focal length options, but something about the 14mm being an amazing prime lense makes me reconsider. Thoughts?

 

[D-B-J]

16-35, for the simple fact that that it's a zoom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[table1349]

The difference between 14mm and 16mm even at such a wide angle is only about 2-3 paces. I love my 16-35 f2.8L II. It is sufficiently sharp although it is a bit soft at 35mm. Very useable on a FF or a crop body. The 14mm f2.8L is sharp, but a bit limiting as well as having a front element that sticks out. Difficult to use filters with.

 

[grafxman]

I'm pretty happy with the Sigma 12-24mm on my 6D. I haven't shot any landscapes with it though. It seems to be plenty sharp enough. Here's a photograph of a photograph in a hallway I shot at 12mm from about 18":

IMG_8280 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I like the fact that it focuses to under one foot.

I was able to capture an entire display case full of mineral samples with it at the Smithsonian. This shot is at 18mm:

IMG_5595 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

At 21mm:

IMG_5649 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

At the extreme edges of these photos the light of the image was traveling through nearly an inch of Plexiglas so it may look a bit soft. That's not the fault of the lens. The lens is excellent.

 

[TCampbell]

A 14mm lens is 25% wider than a 16mm lens. You have divide one by the other. While it may only be a 4mm difference... 4mm out of 16mm is 25% of it's focal length. At 100mm, 4mm would only be 4% of it's focal length. A small change in focal length makes a bigger difference when the values short to begin with.

Also keep in mind it's not just that it's wider... a significant part of wide angle lens characteristics is that they 'stretch' the depth perception on the scene. Things that are just a little far away seem like they are very far away.

I own the 14mm... but if you're agonizing over the choice for landscape photography then I'd go with the 16-35mm to start because that will offer more versatility. If you need wider you can buy the 14mm down the road. Otherwise... rent both for a week to decide.

 

[table1349]

A 14mm lens is 25% wider than a 16mm lens. You have divide one by the other. While it may only be a 4mm difference... 4mm out of 16mm is 25% of it's focal length. At 100mm, 4mm would only be 4% of it's focal length. A small change in focal length makes a bigger difference when the values short to begin with.

???

 

[Derrel]

It's "the new math"...Tim learned it back in the Nixon/Ford era... ;_)

 

[Gavjenks]

The 14mm Canon baffles me.
1) costs about EIGHT times as much as the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 which is rated 4.3 on Amazon versus Canon's 4.4 (difference is autofocus, but at a focal length that almost always will have near-infinite DOF anyway...)
2) Even if you demand autofocus and sealing and no distortion at the cost of a 700% markup, and/or are just only are willing to buy Canon L glass, it's also $1,000 more than the 16-35 for no apparent reason. Not lighter weight, not any more weather sealed, not faster, not as flexible, not particularly sharper by reviews or MDF charts. Wtf?

Makes no sense.

 

[Dao]

I used to own a Tamron 14mm f/2.8 AF lens (made for FF) and I used it with my cropped body. I owned it for few years until I bought the 10-20mm Sigma (made for cropped body). The main reason I do not like the Tamron it the lens has a huge front glass which make it not possible to add a front filter (i.e. ND). I believe it is the same as the EF 14mm lens.

So if you are thinking about using a ND filter with the lens, the zoom lens maybe a better choice.



( But I do admit that the huge front glass draw a lot of attention and there were people asked me questions about that lens)

 

[steveWFL]

The 14mm Canon baffles me.
1) costs about EIGHT times as much as the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 which is rated 4.3 on Amazon versus Canon's 4.4 (difference is autofocus, but at a focal length that almost always will have near-infinite DOF anyway...)
2) Even if you demand autofocus and sealing and no distortion at the cost of a 700% markup, and/or are just only are willing to buy Canon L glass, it's also $1,000 more than the 16-35 for no apparent reason. Not lighter weight, not any more weather sealed, not faster, not as flexible, not particularly sharper by reviews or MDF charts. Wtf?

Makes no sense.

difference audience/type consumer doing the rating

 

[2WheelPhoto]

^^^ OOPS... I logged in with 1st screen name (I never hardly used)

 

[Gavjenks]

The 14mm Canon baffles me.
1) costs about EIGHT times as much as the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 which is rated 4.3 on Amazon versus Canon's 4.4 (difference is autofocus, but at a focal length that almost always will have near-infinite DOF anyway...)
2) Even if you demand autofocus and sealing and no distortion at the cost of a 700% markup, and/or are just only are willing to buy Canon L glass, it's also $1,000 more than the 16-35 for no apparent reason. Not lighter weight, not any more weather sealed, not faster, not as flexible, not particularly sharper by reviews or MDF charts. Wtf?

Makes no sense.

difference audience/type consumer doing the rating

Sure, fine, but EIGHT TIMES more expensive. Different audience doesn't explain anything close to that. I understand you pay incrementally more for higher quality, but come on.
Also, it's the same audience rating the Canon 14 and the Canon 16-35, still doesn't explain that.

 

[table1349]

The 14mm Canon baffles me.
1) costs about EIGHT times as much as the Rokinon 14mm 2.8 which is rated 4.3 on Amazon versus Canon's 4.4 (difference is autofocus, but at a focal length that almost always will have near-infinite DOF anyway...)
2) Even if you demand autofocus and sealing and no distortion at the cost of a 700% markup, and/or are just only are willing to buy Canon L glass, it's also $1,000 more than the 16-35 for no apparent reason. Not lighter weight, not any more weather sealed, not faster, not as flexible, not particularly sharper by reviews or MDF charts. Wtf?

Makes no sense.

difference audience/type consumer doing the rating

Sure, fine, but EIGHT TIMES more expensive. Different audience doesn't explain anything close to that. I understand you pay incrementally more for higher quality, but come on.
Also, it's the same audience rating the Canon 14 and the Canon 16-35, still doesn't explain that.

Geeez.....Your not the one buying it so get over it.

 

[Gavjenks]

Um gryphon, he asked our opinions specifically about that lens. I am giving him my opinion and reasons.
If you don't think we should comment on any situation that is not 100% identical to the one we are in, when asked, the forum would be a pretty boring place.

 

[table1349]

The OP asked specifically about 2 lenses in terms of quality and usefullness. I didn't see in the OP's post anything about price. Apparently the OP is satisfied with the price and is interested in the issues he asked about.