14mm vs 16mm

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.

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)

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.

How good is the VC on the Tammy?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ogbS​HB

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oxpD​rM

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ogcy​h4

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oveh​Yj

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/obzz​Vz

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/odDW​n8

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/o3MA​hj

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/o3MQ​N2

wow...

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.

bobbyz wrote in post #17070147
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.

Talley wrote in post #17071194
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,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17071269
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.

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,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17074300
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.

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