# Wide Canon L choice: 14L II 2.8 or 16-35 II 2.8



## AndreiD (Jul 18, 2012)

Hello people,

Been lurking around this site watching various posts from time to time. I got a new 5d mark iii and my current lens set-up consists in a 24-105 (kit lens from my mk ii), 50L, 100-400L. I'm thinking of buying a wider lens than what can offer the 24-105 at the widest setting.

So which one would you recommend if any? Or stick to the 24?

PS: I'm amateur (ie i don't make money out of this).

Cheers


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2012)

14L is a specialist lens - it's challenging to compose shots and have them succeed (just 'wide' isn't usually visually impactful). When they do, it's great, though.

The 16-35L II is a versatile lens, great as a UWA lens. 

What do you plan to shoot? If you will be using it for static subjects like landscapes, the 17-40mm is not bad when stopped down to f/8-11 (not too different from the 16-35 II at those narrow apertures), and it's a lot cheaper.

Personally, I chose the 16-35 II and I'm quite happy with it.


----------



## AndreiD (Jul 18, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 14L is a specialist lens - it's challenging to compose shots and have them succeed (just 'wide' isn't usually visually impactful). When they do, it's great, though.
> 
> The 16-35L II is a versatile lens, great as a UWA lens.
> 
> ...


Hello

Thanks for your reply. I'll be shooting mostly landscapes and scenery. Yeah i see that the 14 is a heck of a lot more expensive. The same can be said between what you recommended the 17-40 and the 16-35, half the price!

The thing is the 17-40 has the largest aperture in 4 as the same 24-105, case in which the sole gain in paying for another lens is the difference between 24 to wider 17mm. Correct?


----------



## RunAndGun (Jul 18, 2012)

I played with both lenses from CPS before I purchased. I own the 16-35. It's a more versatile lens and honestly I think you'll get more use out of it than the 14mm. The 14mm is kind of a niche/specialty lens. I LOVE shooting WA stuff and that's why I bought the 8-15mm, but even I don't pull it out THAT much because it's not for everything(same for the 14mm). I'm not saying it's not a god lens or a FUN lens, but after the newness wears off, I don't think it will get used nearly as much as the 16-35mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2012)

AndreiD said:


> The thing is the 17-40 has the largest aperture in 4 as the same 24-105, case in which the sole gain in paying for another lens is the difference between 24 to wider 17mm. Correct?



Well, yes...but the difference between 24mm and 17mm is a *big* difference...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 18, 2012)

The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.

It's a shame canon hasn't made the 14-24L by now. It would render these previous two obsolete.

If your really serious on shooting wide, the new zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best thing I've ever seen. Even better than the 14-24 Nikon but with a 3000$ price tag. If you want to go ultra-wide, why compromise?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.
> 
> It's a shame canon hasn't made the 14-24L by now. It would render these previous two obsolete.
> 
> If your really serious on shooting wide, the new zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best thing I've ever seen. Even better than the 14-24 Nikon but with a 3000$ price tag. If you want to go ultra-wide, why compromise?



+1. However, for an amateur, I'd go 17-40L if it's casual landscape photography. If you need it for other purposes, get the 16-35L. There is no reason to spend so much on a prime (the 14L) if you are an amateur, unless you have a deep pocket. However, I use the 16-35L for landscape because I also shoot low light indoor with it. If I didn't shoot low-light indoor, I'd have the 17-40L. Just my opinion.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 14L is a awesome prime but the 16-35 II is a better all purpose wide.
> ...



Isn't the 16-35 alittle sharper than the 17-40?


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 19, 2012)

I have both, I'd go for the 16-35 first, it's more versatile and a great lens overall. I only picked up the 14L II because it was $1100 in mint condition which is a ridiculously good deal. It's fun and very sharp for a UWA lens, but I think you'd get more use out of the 16-35mm.

Depending on how wide you really want to go it may be worth checking out the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 or the 21mm f/2.8, they are both super sharp and have excellent color rendition, MF only but awesome lenses, I love the 21 (but not sure if that's quite wide enough for you).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 19, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Wide open sure. But stopped down they get very close. For a long-term investment, sure the 16-35L II is the best buy. It will do the landscape AND the low-light stuff. The price is double the 17-40L I believe. I bought the 16-35L II because I knew I'd keep it for both.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 19, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Well maybe someday Canon will bring out a 14-24.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 19, 2012)

I could actually go for a 14-24L. That would go in my kit for sure.


----------



## pwp (Jul 19, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AndreiD said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is the 17-40 has the largest aperture in 4 as the same 24-105, case in which the sole gain in paying for another lens is the difference between 24 to wider 17mm. Correct?
> ...



I own both the 17-40 f/4 & the 24-105 f/4IS. The 17-40 at f/4 is mushy and for emergency use only. It kicks in nicely at f/5.6 and from f/8-f/11 is a match for the 16-35 f/2.8II. However the 24-105 f/4 is very sharp, competent and trustworthy at f/4.

To the OP, I'd be choosing a zoom for it's brilliant versatility. If you're shooting landscapes at f/8-f/11 the 17-40 will deliver the goods. If you need wide open capability, then the 16-35 should be your choice. If your budget is strong, the killer landscape lenses are the very new super high IQ 17mm tilt/shift and 24mmII tilt/shift.

PW


----------



## JPL_1020 (Jul 19, 2012)

I'd say get the 16-35mm, it is versatile like everyone is saying. As for the idea of getting 17-40mm instead, I'd say go for the 16-35mm if you have the money. You can easily out grow the 17-40 because of it's limitations -- IQ and aperture wise. 

Buy right the first time, it'll hurt a bit but it really is the way to go. Remember, lenses are the eyes of your camera. 8)


----------



## @!ex (Jul 19, 2012)

I find that a lot of photographers try to get zooms that seamlessly cover a really wide range of focal lengths, in fact I did the same exact thing after I got my first DSLR. I was shooting Pentax at the time, but I got zooms that covered 16-200mm (DA* lenses, which is the pentax equivalent to L glass). This idea seems to make sense from the stand point that you will be able to frame any scene that you come across and will always have a focal range to cover anything you want. Over time I realized that this logic is not reality (at least for me) and in fact this setup lead to much less creativity and fewer impactful, signature shots. There are a few reasons for this. 1) I find that even if I have a full range of focal lengths I am only really be able to "think" and see in subsets of these ranges, and I find that if given the chance to zoom in or out I would often take the safest, most simple composition, which is often boring and usually not that creative. I'm not really sure why this is the case, but it is unmistakeable. I always ended up with fewer original/creative compositions when working with zooms, but if I'm forced to a single focal range I end up much more creative, and able to predict and thus "see" more as I walk around. 2) Zoom Lenses are a hell of a lot heavier and bulkier (compare the 16-35 with the 14 L II) which makes them a hell of a lot more of a pain in the ass to carry around multiple lenses, so you often only end up taking a single lens which limits you as well. I am muchh more likely to carry two relatively light primes, than a couple zooms, so if I carry a 14mm and a 50mm, I actually cover a lot more focal ranges than a single 16-35. 3) Optically they are alway going to be inferior to prime lenses, both in sharpness, color, and speed. Not only that, but I find that in order to get images that stand out from the crowd, using extreme unique glass helps quite a bit, as it gives you a different perspective than is possible with standard zooms, due to the speed and focal length of the lens. I guess I might be a bit different than most, but I want images that are as unique as I can get, they are just more interesting to me, and that is much easier to obtain using unique tools.

When I switched to Canon a month or so ago, I decided to take a new approach to glass. I was just going to buy my favorite prime lenses as fast as possible and stay away from zooms for the most part (I do have a 70-200, for sports shooting though). So my main kit has been the 50 1.2L and the amazing 14mm LII. First off optically the 14mm is crazy sharp all the way to the corners, with great color, and surprisingly low distortions. I actually bought the sigma 12-24 first as it is the widest available FF lens, and I have had great luck with both sigma lenses I have previously owned (8-16 and 10-20 for crop cameras). But the 12-24 was horribly soft and I returned it immediately for the 14mm. I must say I had a bit of sticker shock at first, but it was worth it because it is truly an extremely unique piece of glass. I can't really tell you how much I like it as it is so versatile. It is crazy fast so I can handhold bracket images indoors (which is amazing for me as I used to have to lug a tripod which can be dangerous and slow when urban exploring), and it also can be stopped down for landscapes. Shooting ultra wide is not for the faint of heart and takes a lot of practice and mastery before you can see in 14mm, but if you want a fun adventure I would highly recommend it. This is all I can really say, so maybe I'll just show some images I've got with it the last few weeks to make my point.




Supper by @!ex, on Flickr




Out Back by @!ex, on Flickr




Inner Diameter by @!ex, on Flickr




Bad Oasis by @!ex, on Flickr




Mile High 'Murica by @!ex, on Flickr




Waiting for Tomorrow by @!ex, on Flickr




Chipping Away by @!ex, on Flickr




The Plunge by @!ex, on Flickr




Perspective by @!ex, on Flickr




Drought by @!ex, on Flickr




Ionic Jail by @!ex, on Flickr




Sunset and County by @!ex, on Flickr




Power Sources by @!ex, on Flickr


----------



## RunAndGun (Jul 19, 2012)

@!ex said:


> This is all I can really say, so maybe I'll just show some images I've got with it the last few weeks to make my point.



As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. So, well said...


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 19, 2012)

AndreiD said:


> Hello people,
> 
> Been lurking around this site watching various posts from time to time. I got a new 5d mark iii and my current lens set-up consists in a 24-105 (kit lens from my mk ii), 50L, 100-400L. I'm thinking of buying a wider lens than what can offer the 24-105 at the widest setting.
> 
> ...



You have gotten good advice from experienced photographers here I can see, but I would still like to add a few points. Like you I am an amateur, who take less than 10 paying jobs a year (mainly to help me get more gear, since my wife does not include this kind of money obtained as part of the family income.

I have the 16-35 II and it is great, but so is the 14 II also, albeit like mentioned by several here; less versatile. I am not sure if you use a lot of pola/ND filters and such, but that is easier on a 16-35 with its 82mm thread, as opposed to buy Cookin or Lee systems for the bulby front of the 14?

In addition, I would say that given your brilliant, but relatively limited lens range, I would go for the 16-35, and then maybee go to cover other ranges such as getting my favorite lens, the 135 F2.0L and even a separate 85mm (the latter I landed on a Sigma 85 1.4 after good advice in this forum), which gives you excellent lenses to cover portrait pictures also


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jul 19, 2012)

If you shoot mainly static subjects the TS-E 17 is an amazing lens with much better IQ than the 24-105. As it is 17 instead of 14 it seems less wide, but from static subjects you can create shift panos, which will give you a phantastic 11mm shot with nearly 40MP. But you will have to practice with this lens because if shifted, metering goes wrong, you have to shoot in Manual Modus.

I use this lens as my wide angle, the gap between 17 and 24 is no problem for me


----------



## expo01 (Jul 19, 2012)

out of the lenses you mentioned i'd take the 17-40 (for your landscape needs) it's a fair lens at a fair price.

if you want the most image quality possible, the TS-E 24mm is the thing to own. it's perfect for landscape and architectural work. price point is above the 16-35II though.

on the wider end the 17 TS-E would be a good candidate, which is roughly at the price of the 14mm.


----------



## syder (Jul 19, 2012)

Just a thought... But if you were considering the very expensive Canon 14/L, it might be worth having a look at the Samyang 14/2.8 which is a manual focus only lens, but is optically good and around 1/5th of the Canon's price

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff?start=2


----------



## AndreiD (Jul 19, 2012)

Wow i looked at different reviews and photos taken with the Canon 14mm and the Zeiss 15mm. 

I was very impressed with the lack of distortion of the Zeiss UWF http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/15mm-f28.htm 

as opposed to some pictures, including the ones posted here, of the 14 mm Canon prime where you can clearly see a LOT of distortion.


----------



## tron (Jul 19, 2012)

If you can afford the 14L you would probably find the TS-E 17 more useful. It is very sharp too and it would correct the converging verticals...


----------



## @!ex (Jul 19, 2012)

AndreiD said:


> Wow i looked at different reviews and photos taken with the Canon 14mm and the Zeiss 15mm.
> 
> I was very impressed with the lack of distortion of the Zeiss UWF http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/15mm-f28.htm
> 
> as opposed to some pictures, including the ones posted here, of the 14 mm Canon prime where you can clearly see a LOT of distortion.



Uh oh, we got another Ken Rockwell post on our hands... That Dbag aside, the zeiss 15mm is an amazing piece of glass, but for me it has a few drawbacks that make it a deal breaker. 1) manual focus. This isn't a big deal especially in an ultra wide stopped down, because everything is almost always in focus, but with a fast lens (it is 2.8) it can sometimes be a little more tricky than you think. There is nothing worse than thinking you nailed a once in a lifetime shot, only to later realize that you focus was off by a fraction and it ruins the shot. I wouldn't say that alone would be a deal breaker in this case, but it can be very frustrating (especially since mkiii doesn't accept focus screens). 2) price, that bitch is damned expensive (I say that and I bought the 14L II which is crazy expensive on it's own). 3) heft. It is huge, heavy and bulky. 4) distortions and vignette. while they are slightly more controlled than the 14mm, its really not by much, and the vignette isn't even close the 14mm wins hands down. "What?" you say, "but mr ken dbag said different". He didn't have the shiny new 5d mkiii like you which not only corrects for distortions of the canon glass, but also the vignette AND the chromatic aberrations. You will get none of those amazing benefits from the zeiss glass, without manually correcting for all those problems in post (a bitch). 5) filters. "what?" you say, "but mr knowitall K dbag says that the zeiss is superior because it takes filters and the 14 mm does not". While it does take screw on filters, this is not what you want with an ultra wide, you want sliding plate filters for landscapes, not vignette inducing, non-horizon-shifting screwons. in order to get these plate filters you need a lee, or cokin, or lucroit (I just ordered the lucroit holder with the adapter for the 14mm, and a reverse grad ND and 10 stop ND, anxiously awaiting arrival) system to attach the plate holder to the lens, and you need a nice tight couple to the glass, which seems like it would be impossible with the zeiss because of the huge protruding petals on the front element. So, while this seems to be an advantage for the zeiss on the surface I think it might actually be a bit of hinderance in the end. 6) reach. The difference between 14mm and 15mm seems negligible, right? Wrong, in the ultra wides every mm of difference can equate up to 10% more coverage (and thats about the difference between these two lenes). anyone who shoot UW can tell you, you always want that extra coverage, it can really make or break a shot, especially indoors.

Alright, enough from me. Buy whatever the hell you want (I kid).


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jul 20, 2012)

@!ex said:


> I find that a lot of photographers try to get zooms that seamlessly cover a really wide range of focal lengths, in fact I did the same exact thing after I got my first DSLR... in fact this setup lead to much less creativity and fewer impactful, signature shots. There are a few reasons for this.
> 1) I find that even if I have a full range of focal lengths I am only really be able to "think" and see in subsets of these ranges, and I find that if given the chance to zoom in or out I would often take the safest, most simple composition, which is often boring and usually not that creative.
> 2) Zoom Lenses are a hell of a lot heavier and bulkier (compare the 16-35 with the 14 L II) which makes them a hell of a lot more of a pain in the ass to carry around multiple lenses, so you often only end up taking a single lens which limits you as well.
> 3) Optically they are alway going to be inferior to prime lenses, both in sharpness, color, and speed. Not only that, but I find that in order to get images that stand out from the crowd, using extreme unique glass helps quite a bit, as it gives you a different perspective than is possible with standard zooms, due to the speed and focal length of the lens...
> ...



This.

When moving to the full frame 5D MkIII, I had a similar revelation. The need to capture every image has been replaced with a desire to capture images that show a specific and unique point of view.


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2012)

@!ex said:


> He didn't have the shiny new 5d mkiii like you which not only corrects for distortions of the canon glass


I know that 5D III corrects the vignette and the chromatic aberrations. But 5D mkIII corrects the distortions too? Really?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 20, 2012)

I can't believe that everyone is so "spec-oriented" on this thread. You're assuming that the 16-35L II doesn't take good pictures. For everyday photography, the 16-35L II takes just as good of pictures as the 24 or 17L's. Gosh this is amazing. The guy just wants it for landscape shots and you're suggesting super-expensive lenses that he doesn't need. He either needs the 16-35L or 17-40L and the flexibility over IQ issues that nobody cares about or can notice.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 20, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I can't believe that everyone is so "spec-oriented" on this thread. You're assuming that the 16-35L II doesn't take good pictures. For everyday photography, the 16-35L II takes just as good of pictures as the 24 or 17L's. Gosh this is amazing. The guy just wants it for landscape shots and you're suggesting super-expensive lenses that he doesn't need. He either needs the 16-35L or 17-40L and the flexibility over IQ issues that nobody cares about or can notice.



I get sharp pictures from the 17-40 - there may not be the optical perfection, but to the eye they are pretty d good when printed up to A3 /16x12.


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 20, 2012)

AndreiD said:


> Wow i looked at different reviews and photos taken with the Canon 14mm and the Zeiss 15mm.
> 
> I was very impressed with the lack of distortion of the Zeiss UWF http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/15mm-f28.htm
> 
> as opposed to some pictures, including the ones posted here, of the 14 mm Canon prime where you can clearly see a LOT of distortion.



14mm is insanely wide, some distortion is to be expected. But I agree, the Zeiss 15mm is amazing and I'd love to have one, but can't bring myself to pay $3k for a UWA lens.


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 20, 2012)

tron said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't have the shiny new 5d mkiii like you which not only corrects for distortions of the canon glass
> ...



Digital Photo Professional, Photoshop (and other programs I'm sure) all have distortion correction in them. DPP does it based on lens data, but I don't think it does it in-camera.


----------



## Axilrod (Jul 20, 2012)

@!ex said:


> 5) filters. "what?" you say, "but mr knowitall K dbag says that the zeiss is superior because it takes filters and the 14 mm does not". While it does take screw on filters, this is not what you want with an ultra wide, you want sliding plate filters for landscapes, not vignette inducing, non-horizon-shifting screwons. in order to get these plate filters you need a lee, or cokin, or lucroit (I just ordered the lucroit holder with the adapter for the 14mm, and a reverse grad ND and 10 stop ND, anxiously awaiting arrival) system to attach the plate holder to the lens, and you need a nice tight couple to the glass, which seems like it would be impossible with the zeiss because of the huge protruding petals on the front element.



Not to mention the Zeiss takes *95mm* filters. I thought 82mm were expensive, who knows how much 95's are. So do you have the filter adapter for the 14mm? I know they have that little spot for them on the back of the lens, but I don't even know where to get those type of filters.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Jul 20, 2012)

I have tried the Zeiss 21mm on my colleague's 5D3 and was quite impressed. However, it won't be that much wider than the 24mm you currently got. The 16-35 II is good but definitely not as good/sharp as the Zeiss 21mm and Zeiss 15mm which got much less distortion as well. Cannot comment on the 14L but what I read about it so far was all extremely positive.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 21, 2012)

I'll recommend the ef 20mm f1.8 L ....oh, wait.


----------



## @!ex (Jul 21, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > 5) filters. "what?" you say, "but mr knowitall K dbag says that the zeiss is superior because it takes filters and the 14 mm does not". While it does take screw on filters, this is not what you want with an ultra wide, you want sliding plate filters for landscapes, not vignette inducing, non-horizon-shifting screwons. in order to get these plate filters you need a lee, or cokin, or lucroit (I just ordered the lucroit holder with the adapter for the 14mm, and a reverse grad ND and 10 stop ND, anxiously awaiting arrival) system to attach the plate holder to the lens, and you need a nice tight couple to the glass, which seems like it would be impossible with the zeiss because of the huge protruding petals on the front element.
> ...



Ya the back gels don't have much flexibility, so I go the Lucroit system. An engineer in spain came up with a filter holder that goes beyond anything Lee or cokin has, in that it is for mono block UWA lenses that are too wide for any conventional filter holder system (adaptors are available for the nikon 14-24, canon 14, and a bunch of the samyang and sigma UWA and fisheyes) . I just got it in the mail yesterday along with a cool new piece of black glass (10 stop ND) . All the filters for this system are 165mm and made by HiTech. I'm going to get a reverse ND grad next. I just unboxed it and put it on, now I'm off to go play, just need to find some water to shoot...


----------



## terrellcwoods (Jul 22, 2012)

I had this same exact question a few months back and lik you I do not make money doing this. The recommendation that I got was overwhelmingly to get 16-35. And they were right. For the money and its versatility I have been extremely happy with the choice. The fact is i rented first before I bought!


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 22, 2012)

@!ex said:


> I find that even if I have a full range of focal lengths I am only really be able to "think" and see in subsets of these ranges, and I find that if given the chance to zoom in or out I would often take the safest, most simple composition, which is often boring and usually not that creative.


I agree with that. However you can use zoom and limit yourself by choosing only 3 focal lengths for example (16mm, 24mm and 35mm in this case). Framing using zoom ring gives really bad results for me, because you stop using compression creatively, you just moving your ring.

I'm using this approach, because I have only a zoom lens that covers wide angle, however I'm planning to buy 14mm when I have budget 

Here's one zoom-lens shot for now:


----------



## arcanej (Jul 22, 2012)

@!ex,

I love the pictures you posted. What software do you use for HDR? Thank you!


----------



## @!ex (Jul 22, 2012)

arcanej said:


> @!ex,
> 
> I love the pictures you posted. What software do you use for HDR? Thank you!



Thanks. I use the old standby, photomatix.


----------



## AndreiD (Jul 23, 2012)

Hello guys,

I decided after all to go with the 16-35 despite the x2 price. I'm not sure now the cost is justifiable but i plan to keep those lenses for a very long long time, so i consider it a long term investment. Moreover, another user helped a lot by pointing out that the bigger aperture can be helpful in lower light conditions such as indoor real estate photography which i can use. 

Thank you all for the kind replies


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jul 24, 2012)

AndreiD said:


> I decided after all to go with the 16-35 despite the x2 price. I'm not sure now the cost is justifiable but i plan to keep those lenses for a very long long time, so i consider it a long term investment.



You won't be disappointed. I originally had the 17-40, sold it when the 16-35 II came out. Much better results, especially indoors. 

I have sold the 16-35 recently for the 24 f 1.4L II (change in image philosophy).


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 25, 2012)

I just bought the 16-35II today. So far I'm impressed with it, and lovin the 16mm wide end.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 25, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> I just bought the 16-35II today. So far I'm impressed with it, and lovin the 16mm wide end.


Mine shipped today, so it should be here by Friday. I never warmed up to my 17-40mmL, so I am hoping I like this one. Right now, I have a old Tokina 17mm f/3.5 Prime that I do like, but I have a use for the zoom.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 25, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > I just bought the 16-35II today. So far I'm impressed with it, and lovin the 16mm wide end.
> ...



Nice. I was hoping to get the 24-70II first but it's not happening. I do like the UW end of it and should keep me happy for the next couple of months.


----------



## @!ex (Jul 25, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...



Just a prediction, and I'm not trying to be debbie downer. You will use the wides end of the 16-24 90% of the time. And as time goes by, you will notice that you'll wish it was a bit wider... Next thing you know you will be wishing for the 14... 

This aside, enjoy the new lens...


----------



## Razor2012 (Jul 25, 2012)

@!ex said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



Thanks, your probably right. I'm hoping that Canon brings out a 14-24L.


----------

