# 16-35mm f/2.8L v. 14mm f/2.8L



## lbloom (Apr 27, 2011)

Is there any advantage of the 14mm L lens over the 16-35mm L lens (other than 2mm wider focal length)? Both are f/2.8, and the 14mm is barely wider. Is it that big a deal to make someone turn down the 16-35mm?


----------



## bvukich (Apr 27, 2011)

If you don't already know you want/need the 14/2.8, then the 16-35/2.8 is probably what you're looking for.

But if you know you want/need the 14/2.8, then the 16-35/2.8 is in no way a substitute.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 27, 2011)

lbloom said:


> Is there any advantage of the 14mm L lens over the 16-35mm L lens (other than 2mm wider focal length)? Both are f/2.8, and the 14mm is barely wider.



If you need the extra 2mm, then it's an advantage. The difference between 16mm and 14mm is greater than it sounds. The 14mm f/2.8 is also a prime, which generally means better IQ (in this specific comparison, sharper corners, less vignetting, and less CA).


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 27, 2011)

At 14mm, 2mm *is* a big deal. I have the 14/2.8L II for special applications (mostly northern lights and wide-field astrophoto), and it works very well (although the much cheaper 15/2.8 fisheye does a good job as well). The 16-35/2.8L II is much more versatile for general ultra-wide photography (I haven't used it), so that is probably a much more useful lens unless you have specific applications in mind.

For a detailed comparison, you can check out the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens Review at the-digital-picture.com.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 27, 2011)

Just realized my above post is nearly useless without a why...

I'm at work, so don't have a ton of time to explain why. This should be a good starting point: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm Although 14mm isn't really ultra-wide on a crop sensor.

There are also a ton of people here that are way more knowledgeable than me that will probably chime in.


----------



## kennykodak (Apr 27, 2011)

i did a group shot for a corporation of 100+ execs. the working area was a tight stair case in a historic at deco hotel. they were on a magnificat staircase on i was on a ladder looking down on them. i used a bank of Elinchroms and was able to get f9 @100 iso. first i shot with a H3D-39 Hasselblad with a 50m lens but was tight. then i switched to a Canon 5DII with a 16-35L II. the client chose the Canon shots and was very happy. working for them again in two weeks. leaving the Hasselblad behind.


----------



## lbloom (Apr 27, 2011)

Thank you, these links have been very helpful!


----------



## KyleSTL (Apr 27, 2011)

I think either lens on a crop body is wasteful (with a few very specific exceptions). If you need a f2.8 lens, then buy the 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM. It is much more affordable, and while the wide end falls short by 1mm it offers a much more useful range for an APS-C sensor. If you need wider than that you could always go for the 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 or 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 (albeit not as fast) or the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (albeit with drawbacks it has a 2.8 aperture). Unless you're sporting a crop and a FF body, or intend to purchase a FF body soon, your money would be better spent on lenses intended for the crop form factor. All of these lenses retain their value well too, so you should not be afraid of losing money on resale if or when you move to a full frame camera. Another option for ultra-wide is the Sigma 8-16mm, which has no equal on the wide end.

These are just my opinions.


----------

