# Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.8



## tiger82 (Sep 20, 2013)

I had both of these lenses on my glass upgrade list and now that I got a deal on a Canon refurb 16-35, is there any greatly added utility to having a 14 along with my newly acquired 16-35? Would I use both?

That said, I am now selling my 17-40mm f/4L


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 20, 2013)

There's a big difference between 14 and 16 mm.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 20, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> There's a big difference between 14 and 16 mm.



Please explain. Physically, the 14mm gives you around +/- 3 deg FOV on a FF. Is the difference in IQ worth having both? Since you are so bold in your statement, do you own both?


----------



## danski0224 (Sep 20, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> Please explain. Physically, the 14mm gives you around +/- 3 deg FOV on a FF. Is the difference in IQ worth having both? Since you are so bold in your statement, do you own both?



Yes, I have both.

The 16-35II was first. About a year or so later, I got the 14.

There is a difference between the two. If you want to go that little bit wider or can't step back any further, that leaves the 14, unless you like a fisheye. I am not a pixel peeper , nor do I judge simply based on corner sharpness.

However, I do find the 16-35 to be more useful. I happen to like that range.

Renting the 14 to check it out isn't a bad idea.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2013)

I've had two Canon 14mm f2.8L MkII's, both were the biggest let down of any Canon lens I have used and they certainly don't deserve to be L lenses. Corner softness and CA are not good. I have found the 15mm fisheye defished to be better in IQ than the 14mm L, no, I am not joking.

Depends on what you want want the lens for, the only reason I see for the 14 is if you need the widest angle AND AF, if you don't need good fast accurate AF then the TS-E17 is a vastly better lens and, with a simple auto stitch, goes much wider. If you do need AF I'd still rather use my 15mm and defish as needed.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 20, 2013)

According to TDP, the 14 has about 6 deg greater HFOV. In practice, it feels a lot wider than 16 than the 2mm indicate. The 14 is better optically than the 16-35: sharper and less distortion. I never liked the 16-35 much wide open. It's soft (compared the the 14L, TS-E 17), and the bokeh is nervous wide open. If you intend to shoot indoors, then every mm counts. If you're outside and can move, then the focal length difference isn't that significant and the 14's advantage is allowing you to get closer and "magnify" or stress foreground features more. I tend to use the 16-35 when travelling light, but if I'm bringing more gear, the 16-35 stays home in favor of the 14 and the 17.

I use the fisheye (defished), 14, 17 and 24mm to shoot houses depending on the size of the space. Outside, the 17 is useful for large buildings, but I prefer the 24 for landscapes (especially for stitching). First evaluate your 16-35 and determine whether or not you need to go wider, and as danski0224 suggested, try the 14 before buying it. The 14 is expensive (I got mine used at a good price) and does suffer from CA (although I've had better corner performance experience with the 14 compared to defishing, unlike privatebydesign), and you might find that 16mm is sufficent for you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2013)

tiger82 said:



> danski0224 said:
> 
> 
> > There's a big difference between 14 and 16 mm.
> ...



The difference in diagonal AoV is about 6°. Here is a visual example, courtesy of TDP.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 20, 2013)

Thanks, I know about the FOV difference. I needed qualitative responses.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 20, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> Thanks, I know about the FOV difference. I needed qualitative responses.



Do you? The difference isn't so much the FOV but what the lens does with the extra FOV. The wrapped looking distortion of the 14mm is much more prominent than the 16-35mm at 16mm. There is much more difference in the two than the little 6 degree and 2mm numbers show.

I have owned both and these are my opinions;
The 16-35mm is a usable all around zoom lens. 
The 14mm is a specialty lens on a FF camera that you have to work at your picture to use its unique abilities.
The IQ is better out of the 14mm than the 16-35mm at 16mm. 
Comparing the 16mm framing to the 14mm framing is an apple and orange comparison.


----------



## dave (Sep 20, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I've had two Canon 14mm f2.8L MkII's, both were the biggest let down of any Canon lens I have used and they certainly don't deserve to be L lenses. Corner softness and CA are not good. I have found the 15mm fisheye defished to be better in IQ than the 14mm L, no, I am not joking.
> 
> Depends on what you want want the lens for, the only reason I see for the 14 is if you need the widest angle AND AF, if you don't need good fast accurate AF then the TS-E17 is a vastly better lens and, with a simple auto stitch, goes much wider. If you do need AF I'd still rather use my 15mm and defish as needed.



+1 The TS-E 17mm is a cracker. You would have to really, really, really want to go wider for the 14mm to be worth the money and in some ways I wonder if the Zeiss 15mm isn't a better option as a sharp prime than the 14mm anyway. Obviously at extra cost but what a lens.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 20, 2013)

I'm a mechanical engineer so I probably understand optics better than most. Qualitative opinion is what I am seeking. What will the extra 2mm and 6 deg FOV give me beyond the physics and math?


----------



## Skirball (Sep 20, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> I'm a mechanical engineer so I probably understand optics better than most.



Heh. These kind of statements always crack me up.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 20, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> I'm a mechanical engineer so I probably understand optics better than most. Qualitative opinion is what I am seeking. What will the extra 2mm and 6 deg FOV give me beyond the physics and math?



Either more time in post process correcting distortion.
Or more time composing your picture to either use the distortion to your benefit or hide the distortion.
Did you factor those in.

Qualitative opinion is the 14mm II is the better lens and produces better IQ. 
But I wouldn't buy the 14mm unless you want to go wide, very wide. 
The IQ difference of these two lenses is not the reason to take one over the other. The IQ difference is not significant compared to the wide factor. It would be a non issue IMO with these two. 
One other issue with the 14mm, would be filters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2013)

*Re: Canon 16-35 II f/2.8L AND/OR Canon 14mm II f/2.Ik*



tiger82 said:


> ...the 14mm gives you around *+/- 3 deg FOV* on a FF.





tiger82 said:


> I'm a mechanical engineer so I probably understand optics better than most. Qualitative opinion is what I am seeking. What will the extra 2mm and *6 deg FOV* give me beyond the physics and math?



Egad, I hope your engineering calculations aren't routinely wrong by a two-fold error.


----------



## discojuggernaut (Sep 20, 2013)

I had the 14 for a few months, and was happy to sell it at a decent price to fund the 17mm TSE. I may go back to the Samyang 14mm, but i found the 14 Canon way overpriced and somewhat soft. I loved the AF and ability to handhold at slow shutters, but found the focal length difficult to properly compose with. You really need a prominent foreground subject to make a composition pop, and that precludes people because they will appear comical. If you don't, everything will appear too far away and tiny. And of course there is the filter problem for landscapes.

And if you use PP to correct perspective distortion on buldings, interiors, or trees, you'll be stretching out already somewhat soft pixels. The TSE is amazingly versatile and sharp for methodical compositions, and can be used with extenders (but is manual focus and slower and has the same filter problem)

The 14mm is a great run-and-gun lens if you can create pleasing compositions on the fly, and is one of those "could not have been created with any other lens" lenses. But it was too much for me to consider a 'vital' lens. For reference i have the 24mm 1.4 II and am planning to add a wide zoom, probably 17-40.

Here are some examples of compositions i used it for:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2002065/images/14mm-sample.jpg


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 20, 2013)

tiger82 said:


> I'm a mechanical engineer so I probably understand optics better than most. Qualitative opinion is what I am seeking. What will the extra 2mm and 6 deg FOV give me beyond the physics and math?



Did you use your 17-40 much at 17 and/or wish that it was even wider? If not very often, skip the 14mm focal length.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 20, 2013)

I believe my math was correct: 3 degrees from center on each side adds up to 6 degrees unless you believe you get the additional FOV on one side. It's 3 degrees wider on each side.


----------



## TommyLee (Sep 20, 2013)

I have the 16-35 II ...got it first... a very nice lens 
and
the 14L II had about 1-2 yrs...
also have the 70-200 II ...do NOT have the 24-70 ...have 24-105


MY PLAN was to have the 14L as a wide end of 24-70 II + 70 200 II
and also use 14L +35 Sigma + 85L II + 135L as prime set

I could not bring myself to sell the 16-35 II because it was pretty useful in a two lens set...
like 16-35 + 100L macro...

now the compares
- 14L a fair bit sharper and a lot less distortion than 16-35

- I believe the 16-35 bokeh quality is slightly better than the 14L

- 14L has more CA / fringing than 16-35

- 14L just has a better quality result (when you remove the fringing in LR / DPP)

- 14L is small / compact....compared to 16-35 one fav feature for ME
 .... the blasted 16-35 hood NEVER fits when I need it to....

- 14mm is a LOT wider /able ... I wanted that...but as said it is more a specialty lens


.......................

for YOU
you already have zoom in the 24-70
seems like the 14L fits underneath that lens..
BUT
you seem to be into the usefulness of a zoom ..
I see no primes ....
(me I carry the 14L, sig 35 and 100L/135L as a solid prime solution..I dont see that path in your lenses)

I never fell in love with the new 24-70 because I wanted I.S. on that range....
so I use the 14L below the 24-105 ....and a 135L above....
I use the 70-200 II less and less..and may sell it...(it is a wonderful optic though)

I am happy to carry a 14L 35 siggy and ...'something longer...maybe a macro ...those 3 do all I NEED
..............or sometimes.... a 70-200 +TC2x... depending on needs)

so my response is the 16-35 is a fine lens .....and MAY get you to sell the 24-70 mkI lens

I say get the 16-35 ...but make sure it performs... they vary .....

TOM


these 14L shots are a LOT wider , sharper, less distorted and sharp to edges than the 16-35...but that is what I wanted...besides the small lens size


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 20, 2013)

Unless you LOVE the 14mm FOV, which is noticeably wider than the 16mm, or shoot detailed photos for huge prints, the 16-35 is about 1000x more versatile. It's bigger, not as sharp, mostly in the extreme corners on FF, has less CA, but takes filters, doesn't have fragile glass dome, *zooms*, and can be used to shoot just about everything from landscapes to portraits to architecture. 

I'd suggest renting the 14mm if you really think you need it. I was underwhelmed by it, but others (who love 14mm) consider it irreplaceable. I'll trade 2mm, and a bit less corner sharpness for a lens that I can use for tons of stuff.

Of course, the dark horses in this are the Nikon 14-24 (w/Novoflex adapter) or the Zeiss 15mm, but you really have to love wide shooting to consider those...


----------

