Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 31 Jul 2014 (Thursday) 18:33
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

14mm vs 16mm

 
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,061 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2717
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jul 31, 2014 18:33 |  #1

I don't do alot of stuff on the UWA department but I love the look. For those of you guys that do alot of landscape/interior UWA do you find a great difference between 14mm and 16mm?

I'm gonna unload my 24-70 and 14mm and pick up the 16-35 as a walkaround zoom for some upcoming vacationing I have planned. The 14 is MF and I'm always having to adjust depending on when I shoot up close to shooting far so I feel the MF is kinda finicky and would rather have AF. The 24-70 is phenomenal but I much perfer a 35/85 combo for the stuff I do. Also it's not as wide as I'd like for vacation stuff.

Oh I'm talking the new 16-35 F4 IS.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Todd ­ Lambert
I don't like titles
Avatar
12,625 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 121
Joined May 2009
Location: On The Roads Across America
     
Jul 31, 2014 18:39 |  #2

Yeah, Theres a pretty sizeable difference with 2mm especially at the UWA side of things.

14mm primes are like $275 now, so no reason not to have both if those 2mm are important to you?

You're also losing half the light by going to F4 vs 2.8 (however you're picking up 2 stops from the IS too)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,061 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2717
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jul 31, 2014 18:47 |  #3

Ya I love the IS. I wouldn't know without trying but I think I'll be "OK" with 16mm for what I want. I always have the 8mm if I want extreme.

I'm ok with F4 for an UWA... which would be used mostly for static stuff (kids/family smiling still etc). From what I'm seeing it's a darn sharp lens out into the corners.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnandbentley
Senior Member
Avatar
928 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 170
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Jul 31, 2014 18:51 |  #4

How good is the VC on the Tammy?


6D, Sigma 24mm f1.4 art, sigma 85 f1.4 art

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CanonYouCan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,480 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Jul 31, 2014 18:52 |  #5

Well yeah, you have a tad extra
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/14-vs-16.shtml (external link)

The best UWA zoom I had (after selling 17-40,16-35 II) was the Tokina 16-28 ATX-Pro, but I sold it as it was too heavy and didn't accept filters. Now I use the Tokina 17 f3.5 ATX-Pro, very lightweight, compact and sharp also in the corners from f11-f13

Here you can also simulate the focal lenghts in practice http://imaging.nikon.c​om/lineup/lens/simulat​or/#DX (external link)

But when I defish my 15mm fisheye it's way wider, check this out :
http://www.rokkorfiles​.com/funwithfisheyes.h​tm (external link)

Just go with you mouse over the wide panorama of the cityscape, there appears a white square, this is the usual 16mm, the full image is the 15mm defished, so a lot wider.


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 17-40 F4 L | 24-70 2.8 L | 70-200 2.8L II
Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 Art

Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,061 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2717
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jul 31, 2014 19:01 |  #6

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17069135 (external link)
Well yeah, you have a tad extra
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​lenses/14-vs-16.shtml (external link)

The best UWA zoom I had (after selling 17-40,16-35 II) was the Tokina 16-28 ATX-Pro, but I sold it as it was too heavy and didn't accept filters. Now I use the Tokina 17 f3.5 ATX-Pro, very lightweight, compact and sharp also in the corners from f11-f13

Here you can also simulate the focal lenghts in practice http://imaging.nikon.c​om/lineup/lens/simulat​or/#DX (external link)

But when I defish my 15mm fisheye it's way wider, check this out :
http://www.rokkorfiles​.com/funwithfisheyes.h​tm (external link)

Just go with you mouse over the wide panorama of the cityscape, there appears a white square, this is the usual 16mm, the full image is the 15mm defished, so a lot wider.

Thanks for the links... good info.

I thought about ditching the 8mm for a canon or sigma 15mm. Again i want AF and I don't like having to crop in post. At first it was OK but now it's just another step.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,010 posts
Gallery: 1466 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9480
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jul 31, 2014 19:55 |  #7

Heya,

I find I use my Ultrawide mostly for when I want a big landscape but also with an otherwise large object in it, at close range, to appear smaller and not dominate the frame. So ultrawide for me is good at close proximity.

I do more landscape work at 22mm, 35mm, 85mm than ultrawide.

When you get to the ultrawide lengths, every 1mm makes a big difference.

Just to give you some reference for perspective, I did these tonight at very different focal lengths.

11mm on APS-C (equivalent to 17mm full frame):

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2918/14611718069_a674a6a865_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ogbS​HB  (external link) DPP_0383_4_5_6_7_8_9_t​onemapped_marked (external link) by Mwise1023 (external link), on Flickr

22mm on APS-C (equivalent to 35mm full frame):

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3840/14795273811_2791c6423e_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oxpD​rM  (external link) DPP_0359And7more_tonem​apped_marked (external link) by Mwise1023 (external link), on Flickr

85mm on APS-C (equivalent to 135mm full frame):

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5592/14611851147_3aec5f0341_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ogcy​h4  (external link) DPP_0390_1_2_3_4_5_6_t​onemapped_marked (external link) by Mwise1023 (external link), on Flickr

And some more:

22mm on APS-C (35mm equivalent on full frame):

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3838/14770620826_71de1e0c57_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oveh​Yj  (external link) DPP_0344_45_46_47_48_4​9_50_tonemapped_marked (external link) by Mwise1023 (external link), on Flickr

Now some ultrawide versus normal focal length:

35mm:

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3864/14559566671_0b72242267_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/obzz​Vz  (external link) DPP_2119And8more_tonem​apped (external link) by Mwise1023 (external link), on Flickr

11mm:

IMAGE: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3851/14583048873_9d6e1ac11d_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/odDW​n8  (external link) DPP_2147And7more_tonem​apped (external link) by Mwise1023 (external link), on Flickr

And here's an example of using ultrawide to shrink large objects while still doing a landscape, up close and personal (I had my back to a fence and couldn't go back any more, so ultrawide did the job):

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5485/14471377250_5d3775563e_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/o3MA​hj  (external link) IMG_3313 (external link) by Mwise1023 (external link), on Flickr

11mm:

IMAGE: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2911/14471426069_db13695194_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/o3MQ​N2  (external link) DPP_tree_01_final (external link) by Mwise1023 (external link), on Flickr

My point is, ultrawide does not mean landscape. It's just another perspective. You can do landscape at any focal length, it's just relative to your location and perspective to the composition you want.

The above was produced with a junk Rebel, junk EOS-M, the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 II, EOS-M 22mm F2, 35mm F2 IS, 85mm F1.8, etc, by the way. Nothing great.

Very best,

My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,061 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2717
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jul 31, 2014 22:41 |  #8

wow...


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,282 posts
Likes: 1333
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Aug 01, 2014 09:53 |  #9

I recently got sigma 12-24mm for my 5dmk2 and 12mm on FF is quite wide. Even though I am not a wide angle shooter on wide side 1 or 2 mm make a big difference.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,061 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2717
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 01, 2014 20:04 |  #10

bobbyz wrote in post #17070147 (external link)
I recently got sigma 12-24mm for my 5dmk2 and 12mm on FF is quite wide. Even though I am not a wide angle shooter on wide side 1 or 2 mm make a big difference.

Apparently!

I just feel i'm at a lost void. 24mm then boom straight to 14 with nothing in between. I may just try out a 17-40 and see how that works.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,010 posts
Gallery: 1466 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9480
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Aug 01, 2014 20:50 |  #11

Talley wrote in post #17071194 (external link)
Apparently!

I just feel i'm at a lost void. 24mm then boom straight to 14 with nothing in between. I may just try out a 17-40 and see how that works.

Heya,

I would stress that you don't need 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, etc. You can always go a wee bit wider than your composition calls for and crop it a touch. I assume you're not printing these at 30x20 on your wall. But for common 8x10 or even a bit bigger, you can crop all day and print. If you're just viewing on a computer screen or mobile device and on the web, crop away, no one is viewing it at 100% pixel level, they're looking at it from the size as if it were printed to the size you're physically viewing it at on those devices/screens, and a wee megapixel file will look just as good as a massive one.

On full frame, 17mm is very wide. Going wider is seriously wider. 20~24mm is wide. If it's not something you do a lot of, I would look at examples and see what focal length you think is something you'd use more. I'm willing to bet you're more likely to be using something closer to 24mm more often. 17mm is so wide that it will shrink things to the point of you not seeing them very well, unless you're right up close to them.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,061 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2717
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 03, 2014 11:38 |  #12

MalVeauX wrote in post #17071269 (external link)
Heya,

I would stress that you don't need 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, etc. You can always go a wee bit wider than your composition calls for and crop it a touch. I assume you're not printing these at 30x20 on your wall. But for common 8x10 or even a bit bigger, you can crop all day and print. If you're just viewing on a computer screen or mobile device and on the web, crop away, no one is viewing it at 100% pixel level, they're looking at it from the size as if it were printed to the size you're physically viewing it at on those devices/screens, and a wee megapixel file will look just as good as a massive one.

On full frame, 17mm is very wide. Going wider is seriously wider. 20~24mm is wide. If it's not something you do a lot of, I would look at examples and see what focal length you think is something you'd use more. I'm willing to bet you're more likely to be using something closer to 24mm more often. 17mm is so wide that it will shrink things to the point of you not seeing them very well, unless you're right up close to them.

Very best,

Good point.

Kinda like this 14mm photo. I wanted to get the entire arch in but I should of had my kids closer lol.

IMAGE: https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/s960x960/10495393_10203111764613147_1939966780934118582_o.jpg

A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,010 posts
Gallery: 1466 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 9480
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Aug 03, 2014 19:32 |  #13

Heya,

I get what you're trying to do, but yes, to use UW and do portrait, having them close is a lot more easy than trying to run far back all the time. That's the advantage of UW, close focus distance, good for a portrait group like that, yet still able to grab the whole arch.

Like in that photo, if they were much closer and a bit to the right, the composition would have been really sweet and you could see their faces.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
THREAD ­ STARTER
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,061 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2717
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 04, 2014 00:52 |  #14

MalVeauX wrote in post #17074300 (external link)
Heya,

I get what you're trying to do, but yes, to use UW and do portrait, having them close is a lot more easy than trying to run far back all the time. That's the advantage of UW, close focus distance, good for a portrait group like that, yet still able to grab the whole arch.

Like in that photo, if they were much closer and a bit to the right, the composition would have been really sweet and you could see their faces.

Very best,

I hear ya. The kids were running around something fierce, I had to act quickly. The other issue is the distortion. Get them close to the corners and it's all jacked up ya know.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pkim1230
Senior Member
Avatar
746 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Providence, RI
     
Aug 04, 2014 02:21 |  #15

You can try photoshopping them to bring them closer. It might be funny though.



Gear | 6D, 550D, 1000D IR Modified, Samyang 24mm f/1.4, Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, Canon 40mm f/2.8, Tamron 70-300mm VC f/4-5.6, iOptron SkyTracker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,392 views & 0 likes for this thread
14mm vs 16mm
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is phaneendra
510 guests, 413 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.