Reading mode: Light Dark

16-35L or 14mm prime?

Go to last post
S

SteveX

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
Location
AZ, US
I am asking those who have used both of these lenses:

When used with a D60, which lens seems to take sharper pictures, and, which lens exhibits the least amount of barrel distortion? (assuming the same f-stop is used on all lenses)

Canon 16-35L (AT 16mm) or

Canon 14mmL prime or

Sigma 14mmEX prime

I am trying to decide on one of these three lenses for wide angle photography and sharpness and distortion are my main critieria.

Thanks for any help you guys can give me,

Steve
 
I too am trying to decide on this and asked about the Canon 14mm just yesterday. Basically was told (by concensus) to get the Sigma 14mm and avoid the Tamron.

I STILL distrust zooms and the repeated stories about the Canon 16-35 still disconcert me. Some people are delighted and others disappointed by this lens. Is Canon's quality control really so lax as to allow such great varaibility from sample to sample? Or are individual expectations and experience more at play here. I suspect the latter.

Both lenses are expensive and the zoom certainly promises convenience. I still remain confused as to whether the convenience is worth the trade off.

Guess I will have to pony up and buy both to see for myself! (Arrrghhh!!)

One thing for sure . . . there is always ebay to allow you to recoup a very large part of your losses here.
 
I don't think it is Canon's Q.C., people need to understand that a 16-35mm zoom is a very hard thing to make right. It always has been! A fixed focal length lens is easy to design and produce compared to anyones 16-35 ultrawide zoom.

The 16-35 is a very good lens, however, it is soft when compared to good "Prime" lenses. With a zoom you have to accept a little softness for ease of use.

If possible back off the extremes and shoot at 19-20mm and 30 to 32mm. Shoot at f5.6 to f8 and you well get very nice results. (This holds true for any zoom, not just the 16-35!, I try to use my 100-400 at 150ish to 350ish range when possible.)

I may switch to primes for critical shooting.

Regards,

Jeff Morris

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.
 
At the following page:

http://www.digitalcamera.jp/report/D60-020224/

you will find a number of photos taken
with the 16-35L. These convinced me to
get this lens, and it didn't disappoint
me. It gets soft in the corners, if you
use it at the 35mm end wide open, but
it is an awesome lens.

Some of my photos with this lens can be
found in my Canada galleries:

http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/Vacations/Canada-2002/

(The focal length in the left lower corner
of each photo tells you which of the following
lenses I used: 16-35L, 50/1.4, 70-200L).

Greetings,
Robert F. Tobler
http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/
 
SteveX said:
I am asking those who have used both of these lenses:

When used with a D60, which lens seems to take sharper pictures,
and, which lens exhibits the least amount of barrel distortion?
(assuming the same f-stop is used on all lenses)

Canon 16-35L (AT 16mm) or

Canon 14mmL prime or

Sigma 14mmEX prime
Click to expand...
My solution was to get the Sigma 14, the Cannon 20 primes, and go with my 28 to 135 IS for the "Carry on the camera lense". This works very well and saves some $ for longer good glass. I find my self using the 20 more and more (= 32mm), but there are some shots that only the 14 will get, especially inside of buildings.

Bob Austin
 
Jeff Morris said:
I don't think it is Canon's Q.C., people need to understand that a
16-35mm zoom is a very hard thing to make right. It always has
been! A fixed focal length lens is easy to design and produce
compared to anyones 16-35 ultrawide zoom.

The 16-35 is a very good lens, however, it is soft when compared to
good "Prime" lenses. With a zoom you have to accept a little
softness for ease of use.
Click to expand...
I'd respectfully disagree with you Jeff, my disappointment with the 16-35L (tested two samples) isn't a matter of "prime is better than zoom". I do understand that this is a hard design, but if the lens at 1500$ isn't capable of delivering the same sharpness of a cheap 350$ zoom (my 24-85 is a good performer from 24 to 85 and it IS BETTER than my 16-35L from 24 to 35 at ALL apertures), well... I really don't understand why Canon designed it.

I remember the quality of the 28-70L, my 70-200L IS is a WONDERFUL lens (as it was my former 70-200/4L). My primes are probably better, but you have to compare them very closely to see some differences.

With my 16-35 the only thing you have to do is open the image in PS, set the zoom to anything more than 60% and see everywhere but the center of the frame...

I admit that the D30/D60 cropping factor could help in judging the lens. If I zoom my images to obtain the same "cropping factor" of the D30/D60 the overall images seems sharper because the extreme edges aren't visible, but one of the factors that leaded me to the 1D was its larger sensor for better wideangle options... go figure how the lens will perform on the next full frame 1D...!

I'd go for the Canon 14/2.8L. Probably the ultimate choice for wideangle.
See my post http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3024228
As for me, I've ordered an adapter to use a Zeiss Distagon 18mm on my 1D.
I'll report my feedback.

Regards
Marco
 
SteveX said:
I am asking those who have used both of these lenses:

When used with a D60, which lens seems to take sharper pictures,
and, which lens exhibits the least amount of barrel distortion?
(assuming the same f-stop is used on all lenses)

Canon 16-35L (AT 16mm) or

Canon 14mmL prime or

Sigma 14mmEX prime

I am trying to decide on one of these three lenses for wide angle
photography and sharpness and distortion are my main critieria.

Thanks for any help you guys can give me,

Steve
Click to expand...
 
SteveX,

I have shot with the Canon 14mm, Sigma 14mm and the Canon 17-35. I have not used the Canon 16-35 nor the Sigma 15-30.

Are you looking at shooting at 14mm or the widest constantly? If so, buy a prime. The Sigma is a great lens (I own one). The Canon, to me, is slightly better than Sigma but the cost is outrageous compared to Sigma (> 2000 Canon v.

Due you need to shoot at f2.8? If not, look at the Sigma 15-30. There are plenty of posts about this lens.

Remember that zooms are usually soft at the extremes.

If you don't want a zoom lens, look into a 14mm prime and a 18mm or 20mm prime. The latter can give you a faster lens than the f2.8 zooms.

Greg

PS I like the Canon 17-35mm. It gives me the flexibility that I need. I may buy the Sigma 15-30 based on price though. The Canon 14mm and 17-35 were rental lenses.
SteveX said:
I am asking those who have used both of these lenses:

When used with a D60, which lens seems to take sharper pictures,
and, which lens exhibits the least amount of barrel distortion?
(assuming the same f-stop is used on all lenses)

Canon 16-35L (AT 16mm) or

Canon 14mmL prime or

Sigma 14mmEX prime

I am trying to decide on one of these three lenses for wide angle
photography and sharpness and distortion are my main critieria.

Thanks for any help you guys can give me,

Steve
Click to expand...
 
SteveX said:
Canon 16-35L (AT 16mm) or

Canon 14mmL prime or

Sigma 14mmEX prime

I am trying to decide on one of these three lenses for wide angle
photography and sharpness and distortion are my main critieria.
Click to expand...
I have not used the Canon 14mm or the Canon zoom, but I own and use the Sigma 14mm. I really like it, BUT on it's own, it is not enough "wide" to cover the gulf below my 28-70L. Though I like the lens fine, somehow none of my "memorable" pictures are taken with it. They tend to be with the 100-400L, 28-70L, or (occasionally) the 50mm f/1.8. I suspect it has more to do with my personal taste and style than any problems with the lens.

A lot of the time the 14mm is just too wide, too much stuff in the picture and too much perspective distortion. Zooming with your feet can only do so much. For reasons related more to cost than to the added sharpness of primes vs. zooms, I am going to supplement it with the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 when I can spare the bucks to pick up another lens.

I like and recommend the Sigma 14mm, but I wouldn't count on that alone filling in the "wide-angle" category. And buy the time I buy a 14mm and 20mm (even if both are Sigmas), I'll have spent nearly enough to cover a 16-35L!

Mike B. in OKlahoma
 
Marco,

And I agree with you. On my Alaska vacation over the last few weeks I got the chance to use my 16-35. And as noted, I did say it is soft and I qualified my statement by saying that you have to stop down the lens and not shoot at it's extremes. (16 and 35mm).

I am a wide angle person. However, I also love the reach of my 100 to 400 and I used it a lot. But that lens also suffers from softness. But not as much as the 16-35.

My gripe with the 16-35 lens is the cost. At $1,500 I wanted more sharpness. I purchased the lens based in part on Fred Mirandas comments. I love its focal lenths but when I really need the resolution I slap on the 50.

The fact of the matter is I would sell all my lenses for a super sharp all in one lens that would cover the focal lengths of 28-200mm (35 film) and I would never take it off my camera. However, I will never find such a beast.

Regards,>

--
Jeff Morris

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.
 
SteveX said:
When used with a D60, which lens seems to take sharper pictures,
and, which lens exhibits the least amount of barrel distortion?
(assuming the same f-stop is used on all lenses)

Canon 16-35L (AT 16mm) or

Canon 14mmL prime or

Sigma 14mmEX prime
Click to expand...
I will eventually have to make a similar decision (currently my widest lens is 28/2.8, so my D60 is seriously lacking in wide angles) but I am also seriously considering Canon 15mm fisheye prime instead of these. It's lighter, cheaper, and may (not sure) have sharper edges and less vignetting. Distortion is, um, high, but it can be corrected with PanoTools or similar software. I'm just worried that too much distortion will make it difficult to compose through-the-lens...
 
danks said:
I too am trying to decide on this and asked about the Canon 14mm
just yesterday. Basically was told (by concensus) to get the Sigma
14mm and avoid the Tamron.
Click to expand...
I have seen a number of disparaging remarks regarding the Tamron 14/2.8 on this forum and seriously wonder whether the disparagers actually used the lens at all... I bought one before I had heard of photodo. My only Sigma lens, a 500/6.7 APO, put me off Sigma for life. Mechanically it was a beaut. Optically it should have been a simple design, no zoom, slow lens. That's why I bought it. But it does not deliver, simply not sharp enough. On the other hand my Tamron 14/2.8 is beyond all my expectations. A very difficult design and around $1100 compared to Canon's $2000+. Only reason why I did not get the Canon. I am a great fan of Canon primes. The Tamron 14 shows neither barrel nor pincushion distortion of any consequence, on film, never mind with the 1.6 crop factor. In chart testing in my D30 it is consistently sharper than my Canon 28/2.8 at all f-stops. In other words it is significantly sharper than any zooms out there. On a D30 there is no detectable difference in resolving power between the corners and the center. It is very difficult to have a lens that performs well on nightsky star photos. Yet this Tamron 14 outperforms my Canon 28/2.8, Canon 50/1.8 (mark I) at f 2.8, 100/2.8 macro (non USM). The Tamron is absolutely superb over most of the film frame but does show coma on stars in the corners at f2.8 on FILM. I cannot vouch for the consistency of Tamron quality, perhaps I was just lucky. I would advise anybody who is looking for quality to just buy Canon primes. If $2000 is a bit too much for you (yes, I found it a bit excessive) then you are in a quandary. Do you get the Sigma 14 @ $800, or the Tamron 14 @ $1100? I am very happy with my Tamron 14 since it is sharper than at least some Canon primes. I wonder if the same can be said regarding the Sigma. Without side by side testing (preferably on film, that 1.6 crop will be history in a couple of years) purchasers do have a problem...
 
David Eppstein said:
but I am also seriously considering Canon 15mm fisheye
prime instead of these. It's lighter, cheaper, and may (not sure)
have sharper edges and less vignetting. Distortion is, um, high,
but it can be corrected with PanoTools or similar software. I'm
just worried that too much distortion will make it difficult to
compose through-the-lens...
Click to expand...
Before buying the 16-35 I did some calculations
concerning the necessary correction. Specifically
I wanted to know, how much radial magnification is
necessary in the corners of the image to get a
rectangular projection out of the fisheye. As I
ended up with a factor bigger than 2, meaning that
the fisheye lens would have to be more than twice
as sharp (radially) than a rectangular lens in the
corners, I dropped the idea.

Greetings,
--
Robert F. Tobler
http://ray.cg.tuwien.ac.at/rft/Photography/
 
... even if I'd only like to have more choices from Canon in wide angle range. A 16-35L (pricey zoom with a so-so quality) and a 14L (sometimes too wide and even more pricey...) can't fill our needs.

And I don't know if the situation will completely change when a full frame sensor will be released.
IMHO Canon should at least design a new "L" quality 17mm prime.

There's a great arsenal from 24mm to 1200mm (primes, L-primes, zooms, L-zooms, TS lenses, IS primes, IS zooms...), but too limited below this focal lenght.
Jeff Morris said:
Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.
Click to expand...
Completely agreed...

Take care

Marco
 
I own the 16-35mm Canon lens and recently sold my 14mm Sigma. It was a matter of versatility. Using the 16-35mm I found that I could work much faster by fitting the focal length to the scene vs. being limited to only one focal length with the 14mm. 2mm difference was not a serious consideration for me. I made the right decision by selling the 14mm.

Bob
SteveX said:
I am asking those who have used both of these lenses:

When used with a D60, which lens seems to take sharper pictures,
and, which lens exhibits the least amount of barrel distortion?
(assuming the same f-stop is used on all lenses)

Canon 16-35L (AT 16mm) or

Canon 14mmL prime or

Sigma 14mmEX prime

I am trying to decide on one of these three lenses for wide angle
photography and sharpness and distortion are my main critieria.

Thanks for any help you guys can give me,

Steve
Click to expand...
 
Samir Kharusi said:
I have seen a number of disparaging remarks regarding the Tamron
14/2.8 on this forum and seriously wonder whether the disparagers
actually used the lens at all...
Click to expand...
I believe the source for the comments is http://www.luminous-landscape.com/sigma_14mm.htm

It seems he did NOT actually use the lens. He did examine it at a dealer but was not pleased with it. He judged it poorly made mechanically and disliked the finish . . .no doubt a subjective matter. But, to repeat, it does seem he never actually used it at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top