Sell 16-35L II for 14L 2.8 Prime?

Been thinking of selling the 16-35L II and picking up the 14mm 2.8L II Prime lens. Has anyone gone this route and could contribute some pros and cons to this switch? I mainly do landscape photography and a good majority of my images are shot at 16mm. I do have the 24-70L II to pick-up everything else so I don't think I'd really miss the 17-23mm focal range and the quality of the 14L prime throughout the frame should make up for lost focal range. Thoughts?

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17461809
Been thinking of selling the 16-35L II and picking up the 14mm 2.8L II Prime lens. Has anyone gone this route and could contribute some pros and cons to this switch? I mainly do landscape photography and a good majority of my images are shot at 16mm. I do have the 24-70L II to pick-up everything else so I don't think I'd really miss the 17-23mm focal range and the quality of the 14L prime throughout the frame should make up for lost focal range. Thoughts?

Tough choice.
I would say unless you need the extra stop of light (honestly for landscape I don't think you need it) don't do it.
Now if you were shooting night sky than f2.8 would obviously benefit you.

Now if you were to exchange the 16-35 for the new 11-24 f4.0 than I think it's the best choice out of these 3, especially for landscape.

P.S. I don't have any wide angle lens, just my theory.

Van Gogh wrote in post #17463931
Tough choice.
I would say unless you need the extra stop of light (honestly for landscape I don't think you need it) don't do it.
Now if you were shooting night sky than f2.8 would obviously benefit you.

Now if you were to exchange the 16-35 for the new 11-24 f4.0 than I think it's the best choice out of these 3, especially for landscape.

P.S. I don't have any wide angle lens, just my theory.

I am confused. The 16-35 II is f/2.8. The 14 2.8 is... duh... f/2.8. Where is the stop of light coming from?

I've never had the 14L, but it is widely regarded as one of the most overpriced lenses in the Canon line. The general take is that it sure does not offer some kind of 'prime magic' in the UWA range making it a bunch better than the 16-35L II. What it is instead is a bit wider and a ton more expensive.

My suggestion would be to look at either the 17mm TSE using shifting and stiching, or look at the new 11-24. My understanding is that the new 11-24 actually comes with real, significant improvements in IQ over previous Canon UWA lenses. To me that would make sense. Plus you get a lens that is a lot wider than the 14 prime.

hard to see what the 14L offers over the samyang 14, other than autofocus, for which is not terribly important for landscapes or focal length.

compare it here: http://www.dxomark.com …F28L-II-USM___365_0_789_0

quite frankly, wide open, the samyang blows it away, which is important for starscapes.

does it have better contrast? better colors?

I replaced my 16-35L II with a Rokinon 14mm and I couldn't be happier.

The Canon 14mm is a colossal waste of money. Don't buy it.

Heya,

I wouldn't trade up for the 14L. It's a good lens, mind you, but it's not a great lens. Compare the 14L to something like Rokinon/Samyang 14 F2.8, and see if you really think the mark up for the L seals it for you. For me, I would not bother with that.

That said, if your thing is primarily landscape, and you're ok with spending serious money, consider a few other lenses instead (this is the year of the ultrawide it seems!):

Canon EF 16-35 F4L IS
Canon EF 11-24 F4L
Tamron 15-30 F2.8 VC

Realistically the 16-35 F4L IS, for the money, is the best performer. If you truly need wider, the 11-24 is peerless for full frame 11mm that is not fisheye. If you need faster, Tamron's latest offering pretty much takes it with it's range of 15-30, F2.8 and VC. Each has a place. Just depends on you.

For me, landscape lenses require three things: 1) flare resistance, 2) sharpness in corners stopped down, 3) ability to take standard filter systems. So for me, of all these lenses, the 16-35 F4L IS is the one that I would go for, it has the performance for cost, and nails all the three criteria I would hold as most important for a landscape lens.

Very best,

I don't see how "quality of the 14L prime" could make up for lost focal range. there's a great distance between 14mm and 35mm. I just bought the 14L II but i'm also keeping my 16-35L f4 IS, which is a lens I wouldn't be without. the 14L II is the best 14mm prime made. the biggest argument against it is cost.

what if you don't want a lot wider? the 11-24 is a massive lens and I would say more of a specialty lens. and with the prime you do get f2.8 which is a necessity if you shoot stars. my idea for now is 16-35L f4 IS + used 14L II which costs the same as the 11-24 but gives me IS plus f2.8. of course I will rent the 11-24 at some point and that could change my thinking.

AF, weather sealing. plus I dont consider DXO credible.

Dxo is plenty credible.

They're the most comprehensive gear reviewer to exist, nobody even comes close.

the claim is that the 14L has horrible corners wide open, which translates to smeared stars..... this can be found in Dxo's measurement section. well, there are other reviews that corroborate with that finding:

http://extremeinstabil​ity.com/lens14mm.html

http://www.photozone.d​e …1-canon14f28mk2ff?start=​1
http://www.photozone.d​e …samyang14f28eos​ff?start=1

no doubt the canon is a more corrected lens in terms of distortion and probably field curvature (sy tends to have fairly bad curvature with closer distances in my experience). For astro stuff, sy walks all over the canon. Weather sealing, you've got that right, however the SY lens doesnt have any electronics and can withstand a splash or two. I've been hit with a rogue wave or two directly on the lens without issue. The worse that can happen is mold or something growing.

biggest flaw of the samyang is the 6 aperture blades.... horribly ugly star bursts, however the canon 14 has 6 blades as well, guessing it's equally horrible.

Charlie wrote in post #17465067
Dxo is plenty credible.

They're the most comprehensive gear reviewer to exist, nobody even comes close.
...

Thanks! I needed that. It actually made me check the calendar (nope, not 4/1).
I think most folks rank DxO right up there with KR, Snapsort and CanonRumors.com. Entertainment purposes only.

I certainly ignore the highly suspicious reviews of TDP, DPreview, and PZ.

Thanks, again!

actual user reviews of the 14L II are superb.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …t/334/sort/7/ca​t/2/page/1

i don't want a lens that i have to futz with in a helicopter or on top of a bridge -- AF is mandatory for me and so are stars on long exposures.

i remember when i bought the 35f2 IS everyone was bashing that lens but as soon as the price dropped it became a forum sweetheart. i want the best, not good enough.

sounds like that DXO guy would rather have six corollas than a Porsche. he sure does dwell on the financial aspect quite a bit. reminds me of some guys on this forum

ed rader wrote in post #17465117
sounds like that DXO guy would rather have six corollas than a Porsche. he sure does dwell on the financial aspect quite a bit. reminds me of some guys on this forum

I know I'd rather have six Coronas than a Porshe. I may get into one of those, but you'd have to pry me out. Which may or may not be more difficult after six Coronas.

To keep this topical, I don't see a problem with having a 14mm f/2.8 and a 17-40. Why is it either or? Different tools for different jobs.