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

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17465157
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.

TS says clearly, he has a 24-70, and he's at 16 all the time and wants wider. He also thinks the gap from 14-24 is manageable.

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

that porche 924 is nothing to brag about, I'de gladly take a corolla over it.

guess which one's the porche....

ed rader wrote in post #17465035
...the biggest argument against it is cost.

No, the biggest argument against the 14L is its poor optical quality.

ed rader wrote in post #17465043
I dont consider DXO credible.

So has it gotten to the point where the 11-24 zoom is optically superior to the 14LII?

Yes.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17465489
So has it gotten to the point where the 11-24 zoom is optically superior to the 14LII?

yes.

it's on par with your 24-70, except it does 11-24..... I've you're willing to drop 2k on a lens, bite your tongue and save up a little more at get the 11-24. It's in a whole different league.

i will never sell my 16-35L

doan_andrew wrote in post #17466151
i will never sell my 16-35L

f/2.8 or f/4?

poor optical quality? haha!

slamming the 14L II prime by pushing the new 11-24 which you will never own and owning a $300 third party lens that doesn't AF. sounds about right for here

I'm with Ed on this. I love the IQ on my 14mm f/2.8L II. And I beat the price finding one used like new. 11-24 f/4 for $3000!? I don't get it. I shoot my 50 f/1.2L and 14 f/2.8L wide open a lot. Maybe I'm missing something, but f/4 doesn't cut it for me at that price.

I've heard nothing but great things from some pretty famous landscape photographers about the 14L II. I don't think the 11-24L has been evaluated enough yet to be considered a better performer than the 14L II, but the focal range does seem awesome! Have still yet to see a zoom be sharper than a prime, but my 24-70L II is pretty darn close

Charlie posted an image at the top of the page. The lens with poor sharpness is the 14L II – against the $300 Samyang, no less.

And I'm pretty sure the new 16-35mm f/4 is also sharper than the 14L II.

That comparison at digital picture tells the whole story apparently........can'​t believe the zoom is sharper than the prime. The only thing I was in question about with the 14L was the six pointed sun-stars it will create, but apparently its not that sharp at all. Guess I'll keep saving for a 11-24