# 14mm + 24-70mm or 16-35mm?



## Antiheld (Dec 25, 2011)

Hi guys

I've helped myself to my first fullframe camera (a used 1Ds Mark II) and a 70-200 f/2.8 II with IS.
However, since I do only have the 70-200 and a 50mm f/1.4 I'm wondering which combination of lenses would be the best way to go. I certainly want the 14mm, but which one to go with it? The 24-70 creates a gap between 14-24, while the 16-35 leaves a bigger gap between 35 and 50 and also between 50 and 70.
What do you think - which one's the better way to go?

Thanks a lot for all your help.


----------



## 00Q (Dec 25, 2011)

If it is the choice of 2 lenses vs 1 then get the single 16-35mm. You wont have a problem with the gap as u have the 50mm in there. Many people make the mistake to think that they need a continuous range from 12-200mm. 

It is simply not true. The difference between 35mm and 50mm in your gap, you can EASILY zoom with your feet. Move 1-2 meters and you're there. Absolutely no need to spend that extra money. The other gap is less important between 50 and 70mm. 50mm is good enough.


----------



## Zo0m (Dec 25, 2011)

I concur with the opinion of 00Q and if you look at my signature you will see that I have a similar range of lenses. However, one problem with this setup is the need to constantly changing lenses. Which is all right at first but get's really irritating after a while. I would prefer the 24-70 which is a lot more all round and can complement your 70-200 a lot better. Having a gap at 35-70 is a lot worse then having one at 15mm.



Of course, it's difficult to give you advice without knowing what kind of photographer you are. A wide-angle is generally great for landscapes but less useful for a portrait photographer for example.


----------



## Antiheld (Dec 25, 2011)

Zo0m said:


> I concur with the opinion of 00Q and if you look at my signature you will see that I have a similar range of lenses. However, one problem with this setup is the need to constantly changing lenses. Which is all right at first but get's really irritating after a while. I would prefer the 24-70 which is a lot more all round and can complement your 70-200 a lot better. Having a gap at 35-70 is a lot worse then having one at 15mm.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, it's difficult to give you advice without knowing what kind of photographer you are. A wide-angle is generally great for landscapes but less useful for a portrait photographer for example.



Thanks a lot for your answer.
I realize that I'll have to change lenses more often with that setup. Yet I've already pre-ordered the 1DX and won't be throwing the 1Ds away after I have it. So I guess I'll use them both, the 70-200 most of the time on the 1DX while the 1Ds will be the one with the 14mm or 16-35mm on it. So I guess that wouldn't be a big deal, what do you think?

What I shoot mostly is landscape and portraits. However, I want to try birding soon and also sport photography. I guess I'll get me an Extender for that purpose - are you satisfied with yours?

Thanks a lot and best regards from Switzerland
Lucien


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2011)

If you've got the budget, I'd go with the 24-70mm and the 14mm, mainly for the reason Zo0m stated - it's not about the gap but the frequent lens changes. With the 16-35, you'd have UWA zoom, normal prime, and telezoom in three separate lenses. Also as stated, what you shoot matters - if you always have time, such as shooting only landscapes, architecture, formal portraits, etc., then that would be fine, as would all primes. But if you plan to walk around and shoot, a general purpose zoom (one that covers moderately wide to short tele) is usually a better choice. 

But, with two bodies (assuming you're willing to carry both), 16-35 on one and 70-200 on the other would work very well.


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 25, 2011)

If you are really worried about the gap between 14mm and 24mm, you should consider the awesome Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 (with adapter ofc).


----------



## akiskev (Dec 25, 2011)

I'd go for 24-70 for sure. Excellent zoom lens!


----------



## RayS2121 (Dec 25, 2011)

Switching lenses is no trivial thing and can get annoying quickly if you are a walk-about photographer. 
So, I would second the 24-70 2.8 suggestion, it is a great general purpose zoom. And if you want more reach and don't mind a stop lower, you may consider 24-105L f/4, though I personally favor the 24-70 f/2.8. 

If you are mostly a landscape photogrpaher, the 14mm can be limiting as the _only _ UWA prime. 16-35 II is a great lens in that range and extends into the street photography 30-35mm ranges as a bonus.

If budget is not an issue, I'd get both the 24-70mm and the 16-35II. Cheers!


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 25, 2011)

Ive had a few 24-)70s and i have the 14mm and 16-35 currently. As much as i love the 16-35 i really only own it for the wide end, i just got the 14mm so ill probably get rid of the 16-35. The 14mm is much sharper and the colors are beautiful. Its weird but the 16-35 seems to produce more saturated images than other lenses with the same settings. 

I think youll be best off with the 14 and the 24-70. I just know the 24-70 is a great walkaround lens and youll use it more than the 16-35, and if you do want to go ultra wide youll have the 14.


----------



## acoll123 (Dec 25, 2011)

I just got the 14 and I am trying to sell my 16-35. I also have the 24-105 and don't think I am going to miss the 15-24 range at all. The 14 is great! Like Axilrod I used the 16-35 at the 16 end 90% of the time.


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 26, 2011)

acoll123 said:


> I just got the 14 and I am trying to sell my 16-35. I also have the 24-105 and don't think I am going to miss the 15-24 range at all. The 14 is great! Like Axilrod I used the 16-35 at the 16 end 90% of the time.



Yeah I think I'm going to get the 24 1.4 II or Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 in place of the 16-35, then I would have 14,24L,35L,50L,85L,135L which is like my dream set. Kinda wish I hadn't sold the 100L Macro, but that Zeiss 100mm Macro is incredible (I think its the only Zeiss ZE lens with optics from the Master Primes).


----------



## willrobb (Dec 26, 2011)

If you are doing landscapes and portraits, perhaps the 14mm and the 24-70mm would be best. Your 70-200mm will be great for portraits where you an put some distance between you and your subject, but if you are tight for space the 24-70mm will be a saviour.


----------



## rlilla (Dec 26, 2011)

I just registered for this site so that I could reply to your inquiry! I bought a used full frame 5D Mark I this summer and love it. (I got tired of waiting for the 5D Mark III!) After a long time looking at sample photos at pixel-peeper.com, I became convinced that prime lenses was what I wanted. Yes, changing lenses is a pain, but I love the pictures that they take. I bought a 14mm on ebay, and then with extra cash I made from my summer contract, bought a new 24mm 1.4, a 50mm 1.2, and a 135mm. Then in October, I became convinced that for the added flexibility of not changing lenses, I could live with the 16-35mm, so sold the 14mm on ebay and bought the 16-35. I was not happy with the results. I walked around my town and took photos at a 2.8 setting at 24mm with both the 16-35 and my 24mm. My 24mm blew away the 16-35, both in terms of clarity and saturation. So, having bought the lens at B&H, I sent back the 16-35 and purchased (again) the 14mm (It was on sale!). I love the 14mm because it is light (unlike the much heavier 16-35 or super heavy Nikon 14-24) and because the picture quality is excellent. So my advice: buy the 14, keep the 50, and then, when you have money, purchase the 24 1.4. My 24mm is the lens I keep on my camera most often. Oh, by the way, I did have a 24-70 a couple of years ago when I had a Canon 60D, but sold it because it was too long and heavy. Good luck on your decision!


----------



## Caps18 (Dec 26, 2011)

I would vote for the 17mm TS-E and the 24-70mm if I had to do it all over again. Not that there is anything wrong with my 16-35mm. (Especially if they put IS on the 24-70)

I took some photos with the 16-35, 50 f/1.2, and 85 f/1.8 in low light conditions and didn't see much difference until it was at 200-400%


----------



## jasonsim (Dec 26, 2011)

Hi, I'd vote for the 16-35mm f/2.8L II for it's versatility. 16mm is plenty wide on a FF and you can use filter on it (ND, polarizers, etc). Instead of the 24-70mm, I'd go with the 24-105mm IS, which I use as my general purpose (travel etc) lens, especially when I do not want to switch lenses that much. you already have low light covered with your 50 1.4.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 26, 2011)

Rent a lens to try it out. Places like Lens Rentals will let you rent and then buy if you like it, getting credit for X days of your rental, so it does not cost you anything if its the right lens on the first try.


----------

