14L & 16-35L Owners?

I know that 14L owners are a rare breed, but I am curious if anyone out there owns both the 16-35L and the 14L. I am kicking around the idea of getting a 14L, but I'm not sure its going to be different enough from my 16-35 to justify it, so I'd love to hear some thoughts.

Thanks!
Tim

This doesn't directly respond to your question, but I've used the Sigma 12-24mm on a 5D and it's pretty spectacular. Obviously if you need the f/2.8 then it's not going to be an option, but it could be something to consider.

I owned the sigma and loved it. Great lens, excellent construction

I also owned the 14L (not the newer version) and thought it was a great lens. The newer version is even better, if a bit overpriced.

The 16-35 is one of the few lenses I've never owned. I opted at the time to be "cheap" and purchased the 17-40 which is an excellent performer in its own right, but something about that f4 just annoyed me and I sold it after hardly ever using it.

While I think you will see a difference, especially in size and weight, I don't think the extra 2mm's will make a big difference.

mark

I have both.

I picked up the 14mm for two reasons. The first is there is a LOT less distortion at 14mm than 16mm. In fact the 14mm is scary in that regard. It's that wide, yet remarkably distortion-free. Second, it's 2mm wider. At the wide end of lenses, every millimeter can make a marked difference. With teles on the other hand, 2mm is nothing.

As a bonus, the 14mm is smaller than the 16-35mm. Not sure about weight, I'd have to check it at home. I'm actually thinking the 14mm is about the same if not heavier, believe it or not.

As a negative, the 14mm can't take filters - the 16-35mm can.

I'm close to what you're asking....have the 14L and 17-35L (the 16-35L's predecessor) Obviously, I've got an extra mm in there but there really is quite a difference in coverage.

The 17-35 is slightly soft in the full frame edges and barrels a little into the bargain (this might not be the case with the 16-35)....neither of these traits is an issue with the 14L.

Bob

Double Negative wrote in post #6335739
I have both.

I picked up the 14mm for two reasons. The first is there is a LOT less distortion at 14mm than 16mm. In fact the 14mm is scary in that regard. It's that wide, yet remarkably distortion-free. Second, it's 2mm wider. At the wide end of lenses, every millimeter can make a marked difference. With teles on the other hand, 2mm is nothing.

As a bonus, the 14mm is smaller than the 16-35mm. Not sure about weight, I'd have to check it at home. I'm actually thinking the 14mm is about the same if not heavier, believe it or not.

As a negative, the 14mm can't take filters - the 16-35mm can.

How do you find the difference in IQ, even when stopped down to f/8 etc?

What will you be shooting...I shoot the 14 II and the 16-35 II constantly but to answer anything youd have to ask something specific

Thanks for the responses all! Might have to give this lens a shot.

wallybud wrote in post #6336640
What will you be shooting...I shoot the 14 II and the 16-35 II constantly but to answer anything youd have to ask something specific

Anything really, landscapes, architecture, people, etc...

The 14mm 2.8 MKII is so much fun to shoot IT IS A JOKE! Almost 0 distortion amazing color, clarity is wow...sharp...what more can you want oh yeah 2.8

check out the review on the-digital-picture.com its really up to you I mean I really want the 16-35II but can justify spending the money yet when I have a 17-40 and bills to pay...but if you really can't decide rent both for a couple days at lensrental.com and play around

the prime makes you get creative and use your legs to find composition the zoom will make you a little lazy IMO...14mm is SOOOO WIDE haha its ridiculous!

I agree with wally. Ive had 16-35II, but 14II is much nicer.

echo wrote in post #6336469
How do you find the difference in IQ, even when stopped down to f/8 etc?

When the 14L isn't stopped down it has a relatively curved field (people often mistake this as being "soft in the corners." Stopped down the field flattens out and becomes ridiculously sharp. Both lenses really need to be stopped down; on the 14L to flatten the field (though it's sharp) and the 16-35 because it's soft wide open. At f/5.6-8 these lenses really come into their own. But I'd give the nod to the 14L for sure.

Double Negative wrote in post #6339207
When the 14L isn't stopped down it has a relatively curved field ...

My Nikon 14-24 ain't got no curved field at 14 wide open. But then again, it's acknowledged to be a much better performer. Come on Canon, how bout getting it right.

me

Yes, the 14-24 is better optically. Im sure Canon could make something like that, but they obviously have go another way; 16-35 is still a "normal" lens as it can take filters, 14L is actually small, something you can just put in your pocket. The nikkor is a glass mushroom that has sacrificed practicality same amount 14 has sacrificed optically.

All have their uses, and theres no need to make this in a C vs N thread. I almost got the 14-24, but decided to "settle" for 14, because of the size and because I didnt want to hassle/wait for a decend G-adapter.

Sorry if you took my post as a Nikon vs. Canon thread. Anybody who knows me, knows I do not think that way. I love both systems. I've still kept all my Canon long glass (and the fab 35L) and am just waiting for the next 1 series body to hit the market. I was only stating a fact, that the 14-24 is not "round" wide open, that's all.

And of course the 14-24 is bigger, it's a zoom after all. And while the 14 is smaller, I wouldn't consider it small enough to fit in a pocket, unless it's a pretty big jacket pocket. But I don't buy lenses based on what pocket they will fit in. As far as a filter is concerned, I see no need for them on wide angle lenses. I have a couple of CP filters, one for the 300 f2.8 and another one that will fit the 70-200 among other lenses, and I almost never use it. I have been sorely tempted to get a 3 stop soft ND filter though.
me

The OP is shooting archit/landscape...Id say a CPL is almost a must in both situations 95% of the time...I shoot the same subjects and well my CPL is basically glued to my lens...even on overcast days I use it to cut the glare on tree foliage/puddles/etc in order to let the full color come through to the sensor...

for colored victorian houses this would be a must as well as the windows of skyscrapers

so although i say that the 14 is great get the 14...the 14 would have to be paired with the 16-35 or something to that effect because Id never buy the 14 OVER the 16-35 duh ONLY to the fact that I can use my filters on it