# 14mm prime vs. 16-35mm zoom



## terrellcwoods (Feb 25, 2012)

What would be the better purchase? Presently i shoot with a 7D with a decently filled out kit. What i do not have is a wide lens. I am not so concerned about the cost difference since they are both body punches to my wallet anyway! I will be buying a full frame in a few months, which i wish I would have bought initially. i just didn't know i would like photography so much.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Feb 25, 2012)

I would say it depends on the lenses you already got in your bag. If you got anything wider than 50mm already then you could go for the 14mm, if your other lenses should only start at 70mm (or above) I would recommend the 16-35mm. I never tried the 14mm but have been using the 16-35 Mk2 for almost 2 years and love it. On a Crop Body it is a great walk around lense, particularly if you have nothing shorter than 70mm otherwise.

I took almost 50% of my pics with the 16-35 Mk2 (on an APS-C mainly), so there must be something about it, it's definitely more versatile than the 14mm.

If you should have a chance to try them both it should be easy to make a decision.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2012)

Of the two, my inclination would be the 16-35 II, but it depends entirely on how wide you need to go. 

What's "a few months"? 3? 6? 15? If you have the funds right now, you could pick up the excellent Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 - it's wonderful on APS-C, but of course, not FF compatible. I bought one (new, from Amazon), used it on my APS-C camera for 'a few months' (11, to be exact) before getting a 5DII then a 16-35 II. At that point, I sold the 10-22mm, and lost $50 on the deal - a very cheap 11-month rental. There's a rebate on the lens now - if you buy during a rebate, and sell when there's not one available, you'll take a minimal loss, if any. Personally, I think it's worth it to get the lens that's best suited for the body you have today.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2012)

Saw in another thread you shoot architecture. I strongly recommend a TS-E lens. I find 24mm on FF wide enough, but for large buildings or interiors, the 17mm would be better (and be wide angle on APS-C).

One more note about the 10-22mm - it's got much less distortion than the 16-35mm. Distortion can be corrected in post, but the price is a decreased AoV and some loss of corner sharpness.


----------



## RedEye (Feb 25, 2012)

I too have been thinking about the 14mm because of the overall quality of a prime. I guess it would be helpful if an owner of both did a side by side comparison. I think th econtract of the 14mm is better, but the price...


----------



## kennykodak (Feb 25, 2012)

i have both but if i had to choose one it would be the 16-35.


----------



## jwong (Feb 25, 2012)

Agree with Neuro, you should consider TS-Es first if you are interested in architecture. The 17mm TS-E makes sense because most zooms end at 24mm and it gets you into the UWA range. You could always keep the 7D to make the 17mm a 27mm, which is a cheaper option than the TS-E 24mm, which wouldn't extend your range. If you find that you'd like something wider than 17mm then you can consider the 14mm.


----------



## Caps18 (Feb 25, 2012)

With the 17mm TS-E you can add in a 1.4x or 2x to make the focal length different... 

However, for ease of use and if you were going to just walk around and take pictures, the 16-35mm is the way to go.


----------



## Lucid (Feb 25, 2012)

I've used both lenses quite a bit. The quality of the 14mm is far and away superior to the 16-35. I think there is a lot of room for improvement in the latter lens. I have a 24-70, so half the range of the 16-35 is unneeded, so when I want to go very wide the 14mm delivers. It is one of canon's best lenses. If, as someone mentioned, you are shooting g architecture than the 17 ts-e us excellent but otherwise the 14mm is the way is go.


----------



## seanature (Feb 25, 2012)

I have both, and I really think one is not a replacement for the other. If you've never looked through a 14mm lens, it's incredibly wide. At 14mm, it's nearly 13 percent wider than the widest end of the zoom. It may not sound like much, but it really does force you to get closer to your subject, or it could end up too small in the image. The wider view also requires you to be more careful to avoid perspective distortion.

None of this will be much of an issue for you with your crop camera, but if you are going full-frame, you may find the 16-35 more useful for those reasons. 

You can also screw filters onto the zoom lenses (77mm filters for the original 16-35; 82mm for the mark II). The outer element on the 14mm is like a giant dome, so there's no way to screw a polarizer or holder for neutral density filters over it.

The 14mm is very sharp and its extreme view can help you create very dramatic images. It's also a lot of fun to use. I just find it to be a special-purpose lens. At least for me, the 16-35 is a better everyday lens.


----------



## terrellcwoods (Feb 26, 2012)

Thanks everyone! I pulled the trigger on the 16-35. I've never been involved in these forums like this and this was great. Happy shooting.


----------



## messus (Feb 26, 2012)

I have used both the 14mm (II) and the 16-35 (II) and they are both below par on full frame due to average corner sharpness compared to eg. samyang 14mm and nikon 14-24.

On a crop APS-C camera as the 7D you might not see the softness in the corners, but it is a total waste of money to buy any of these lenses to use on a 7D.

Buy a Tokina 11-16, which is an excellent wide angle lens for the 7D, fast (2.8), and sharp edge-to-edge... The upcoming Tokina 11-16 2.8 II might be even better..

If you insist on buying a prime, I would save the cash and buy a samyang 14..


----------

