# Canon 14mm + 24 1.4 vs. 16-35 and 135mm vs. 70-200 IS



## Wedding Shooter1 (Feb 10, 2012)

So, I have been lusting after the 14mm II and 24mm II and the 135 f2. 

Been shooting with the 15 fish, 16-35, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 100 macro L, 28-70L and 70-200 IS. Just picked up the 14, 24 and 135 since Canon was running good rebates. 

Thinking for the past year or so that I think I like primes better than the zooms and that the 3 lenses above can replace my zooms. My mk I 16-35 has been a staple at weddings for me along with the 70-200IS, but dam it can get big and heavy, plus it isn't very good indoors for receptions in low light. Really love that f2 on the 135 so I have been hoping I could lose the 70-200, can't really think of a time when I need 200 over the 135 and seem to shoot at 135 or so a lot with it. Plus that f2 is great for inside stuff if needed!

Just received the lenses 2 days ago so all I've done so far is some indoor shots around here comparing the 14 to the 16-35 and wow the 14 kills the zoom. Now I don't know if the 16-35 mk II has fixed these issues but what I found is serious vignetting with the zoom at 2.8, seems to be none at all with the 14, I was like..dam!.....Plus barely any distortion with the 14 compared to the zoom. Never really noticed it before but when comparing the 14 kept lines really straight while the zoom showed barrel distortion, didn't really expect that actually. The 14 is such a cool unique lens, gotta get it outside and get some pics going for a final comparison.

The 24 1.4 is just spectacular and sharp. Makes a great wide lens for most of the day, with the 14 popping on when needed. Love the 1.4 on a wide angle. Great for wedding receptions!

Totally thinking of selling my 16-25 and after a few shots with the 135 I can't really see a use for my 70-200 IS that the 135 can't handle. And the bokeh with f2 is incredible, I think I find it even more pleasing than the zoom at 200 and f2.8. Hopefully I don't miss the IS but with f2 and being able to go to 6400 ISO on the 5dII I don't think it's a problem really. I have some 6400 ISO shots done with the 24 1.4 that are printed at 12.18 and seriously look like they are ISO 100 with no noise...amazing!

I guess I am going to be all prime now and stick with 14, 15 fish, 24 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 100 macro L and the 135 f2....Also I am now lusting after the 200 f2...haha...but dunno if it's too close to 135...The 200 f2 and 300f 2.8 IS both look awesome for a long lens to complete my arsenal, although that won't be for a bit since they are 5 grand and up!...lol...what one of the two do you guys suggest?

And now that I am going to sell my zooms most likely, how do you all price your used lenses? Lens prices seem to keep going up when new models come out....and now some lenses like my 28-70L are discontinued...how would that be priced? Any help in this area would be appreciated. 

Figured I would post up my thoughts on these lenses since I labored over buying them for so long. I'm sure there are a few of you out there that struggle with these decisions too...Dam Canon for making so many awesome lenses...lmao!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2012)

Check prices on fredmiranda.com and POTN buy/sell boards.


----------



## Wedding Shooter1 (Feb 12, 2012)

Hey thanks for the reply neuro! I did check craigslist but that wasn't much help...lmao.....I'll check out FM!


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 14, 2012)

Wedding Shooter1 said:


> Hey thanks for the reply neuro! I did check craigslist but that wasn't much help...lmao.....I'll check out FM!



If you want to buy on CL you have to search frequently and use generic search terms. Just search "Canon" and set a minimum price of $500-$750 to weed out all of the crap. Don't be specific with the searches, like if you search "Canon 50mm f/1.2," listings like "Canon 50 f/1.2" or "Canon 50mm 1.2" wouldn't show up. Craigslist search is very literal, if you put too much you'll miss plenty of lenses.

I got almost every lens in my sig through CL


----------



## Wedding Shooter1 (Feb 15, 2012)

Hey thanks for the advice axilrod......So I see you have the 14mm II and 16-35 II....how are those lenses compared to each other? The 14 II is killing my 16-35 version 1..is it the same with the version II of the zoom or what do you think?


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 16, 2012)

Wedding Shooter1 said:


> Hey thanks for the advice axilrod......So I see you have the 14mm II and 16-35 II....how are those lenses compared to each other? The 14 II is killing my 16-35 version 1..is it the same with the version II of the zoom or what do you think?



No problem, that advice got my buddy a 17-55 f/2.8 IS for a pretty damn good deal the other day. He kept telling me he couldn't find any on CL, he was searching 17-55mm f/2.8 and it took me about 15 seconds to find one. The guy had listed it as "Canon 17-55 2.8," so I'm sure anyone looking for that lens specifically missed it. 

Yes the 14L II is definitely much sharper and has much better color rendition than the 16-35mm. Of course the 16-35 is more versatile, and is definitely sharp for a zoom, not so much wide open, but at f/4-f/8 it's really sharp. I think the 16-35 II is definitely a big improvement from the v1 of the lens, but still not better than the 14L II.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 16, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Wedding Shooter1 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey thanks for the reply neuro! I did check craigslist but that wasn't much help...lmao.....I'll check out FM!
> ...



Here is a Tip.

I use Craigs Pal to monitor Craigslist. Sure, it cost a few dollars, but has paid for its self many times over. Search multiple locations, or by a radius in miles and get a e-mail or mobile phone message when a new listing appears that matches your search terms. You'll be the first one to know about any good deals. I've bought many cameras and lenses that way. Good deals can disappear in minutes, so you never know you missed them.

I use the equipment, and keep the ones I find that I use, and resell the others, usually for a higher price. I don't buy unless I can resell without losing money. Just let the overpriced stuff pass.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 16, 2012)

I have to say I envy you the 14mm F2.8L I borrowed it for more than a week, and it is great. I have the 16-35II and I love the versatility of it, while with the 14 you are stuck with 14... But if I get the money it is definitly on the list of lenses I would like to buy. You mention the 200mm F2.0L IS USM. I would borrow/rent it first.. I borrowed it for a week from a friend of mine, and I went out to shoot with another friend of mine who is a photographer, and we both agreed that it is too heavy and big. For its specific use there is no equal, but as you are a wedding photographer, I doubt that you would find yourself carrying it around for hours. The 135 is in my opinion a cream machine, and I wondered for a long time if I should get that one and a double extender (when I need the reach) instead of the 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM. I ended up having both and like them both.

Posting a shot I took with the 14mm. I miss that baby so much...


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 16, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Here is a Tip.
> 
> I use Craigs Pal to monitor Craigslist. Sure, it cost a few dollars, but has paid for its self many times over. Search multiple locations, or by a radius in miles and get a e-mail or mobile phone message when a new listing appears that matches your search terms. You'll be the first one to know about any good deals. I've bought many cameras and lenses that way. Good deals can disappear in minutes, so you never know you missed them.
> 
> I use the equipment, and keep the ones I find that I use, and resell the others, usually for a higher price. I don't buy unless I can resell without losing money. Just let the overpriced stuff pass.



You actually mentioned this in another thread a while back and I tried searching further (geographically). I found most people aren't willing to ship and I'm not willing to drive out of state for a lens unless it's a once in a lifetime deal. But the whole keyword notification seems like it would be useful. CraigsPro for iPad works well for searching in-state, as you can add whatever cities you want.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 16, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> I have to say I envy you the 14mm F2.8L I borrowed it for more than a week, and it is great. I have the 16-35II and I love the versatility of it, while with the 14 you are stuck with 14... But if I get the money it is definitly on the list of lenses I would like to buy. You mention the 200mm F2.0L IS USM. I would borrow/rent it first.. I borrowed it for a week from a friend of mine, and I went out to shoot with another friend of mine who is a photographer, and we both agreed that it is too heavy and big. For its specific use there is no equal, but as you are a wedding photographer, I doubt that you would find yourself carrying it around for hours. The 135 is in my opinion a cream machine, and I wondered for a long time if I should get that one and a double extender (when I need the reach) instead of the 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM. I ended up having both and like them both.
> 
> Posting a shot I took with the 14mm. I miss that baby so much...



It is a sweet lens, but hard to justify the price (especially if you already have a 16-35mm). I never could have paid retail for one, but for $1100 I was all over it.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 16, 2012)

1100 dollars... That's incredible, but then again you guys in the US are used to insanely low prices compared to the rest of the world, which also makes its way to the used market.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> I have to say I envy you the 14mm F2.8L I borrowed it for more than a week, and it is great. I have the 16-35II and I love the versatility of it, while with the 14 you are stuck with 14... But if I get the money it is definitly on the list of lenses I would like to buy. You mention the 200mm F2.0L IS USM. I would borrow/rent it first.. I borrowed it for a week from a friend of mine, and I went out to shoot with another friend of mine who is a photographer, and we both agreed that it is too heavy and big. For its specific use there is no equal, but as you are a wedding photographer, I doubt that you would find yourself carrying it around for hours. The 135 is in my opinion a cream machine, and I wondered for a long time if I should get that one and a double extender (when I need the reach) instead of the 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM. I ended up having both and like them both.
> 
> Posting a shot I took with the 14mm. I miss that baby so much...



You mentioned the 135mm with the extender......

When my 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II was 6 months old, the focus stopped working. USM motor failure, it was under warranty and Canon took care of it, but while it was away for nearly 3 weeks (grrrrr), I had a shoot of a girls soccer team at a tournament. 

I put the 1.4x tele rev3 on the 135mm f/2, on the 7D and headed out the door. I was really happy with the results, the images were excellent. It was a bit tricky shooting a prime when I would normally be shooting a zoom for that work, but the results spoke for themselves.

It can easily serve that role in a pinch.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 16, 2012)

Axilrod.

I might add that we (the rest of the world, and in my case Norway) reap the benefit of low prices in the US, in addition to the low dollar. I recently bought a Domke Ruggedwear F2 (and I love it) to have something in addition to my larger backpack. I paid 139 $ for it (shipping was free), and if I had bought the exact same bag in Norway, I would have to pay 395 $! Welcome to Norway


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 16, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say I envy you the 14mm F2.8L I borrowed it for more than a week, and it is great. I have the 16-35II and I love the versatility of it, while with the 14 you are stuck with 14... But if I get the money it is definitly on the list of lenses I would like to buy. You mention the 200mm F2.0L IS USM. I would borrow/rent it first.. I borrowed it for a week from a friend of mine, and I went out to shoot with another friend of mine who is a photographer, and we both agreed that it is too heavy and big. For its specific use there is no equal, but as you are a wedding photographer, I doubt that you would find yourself carrying it around for hours. The 135 is in my opinion a cream machine, and I wondered for a long time if I should get that one and a double extender (when I need the reach) instead of the 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM. I ended up having both and like them both.
> ...



That is nice to hear. My next buy is the 2x extender mk III (after that I will finally get the MP-E65......). I look forward to shoot with both the 135 F2.0 and the 70-200 F2.8L IS II with a double extender.


----------



## Wedding Shooter1 (Feb 21, 2012)

I wanted to update this thread and my opinion of the 14mm for those who may be thinking of it...

It is an amazing lens, keeps lines very straight and handles flare very well. It's killer for interiors, amazing! If I was doing work that involved a lot of photos for inside like real estate or commercial interior work or architectural work I would never let this baby go. It also produced photos that contained more contrast when shooting inside at windows with sun hitting them. There was more of a light bleed with the zoom, I do have the first version of that so it may be corrected in the version II of that zoom.

That being said, it's not really making that much of a difference over the 16-35 for wedding use. Sure the lines aren't totally as straight but wedding couples are not going to care. I took tons of inside shots and the 14 just exaggerates people slightly too much for certain photos. At 16 you get it too but it's not that bad. I also took many shots with 14 on and then popped on the zoom for many befores and afters showing them to friends, none could pick out the 14 vs the zoom. I noticed that to get almost exactly what the 14 is giving with the zoom I would just have to take a step or so back and it would be practically identical. 

For now I'm going to stick with my 15 fish and the 16-35, return the 14 and most likely go with the Wacom Cintiq 24hd.


----------



## terrellcwoods (Feb 25, 2012)

How coincidental that I just posted a pretty similar question...well sort of. I do know that that 14 is used by a people who shoot a lot of architectural because of the reticulated properties ( i read that!) Some have told me to look at the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 if i wanted to go ultra-wide at a serious lesser price. I'd be interested in what your final purchase will be


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2012)

terrellcwoods said:


> How coincidental that I just posted a pretty similar question...well sort of. I do know that that 14 is used by a people who shoot a lot of architectural because of the reticulated properties ( i read that!) Some have told me to look at the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 if i wanted to go ultra-wide at a serious lesser price. I'd be interested in what your final purchase will be



Some have told me to look at the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 if i wanted to go ultra-wide at a serious lesser price on APS-C. The more expensive 16-35mm isn't ultrawide on APS-C, and while the 14mm is, it's barely into the ultrawide range.

If you shoot architecture, you should really be looking at the TS-E 17mm f/4L on FF.


----------

