16-35L or 14mm prime?

t_streng@t-online.de · Jul 19, 2002

I just read a test in a German foto magazin.
The Sigma 15-30 has been tested better than the Canon 16-35.
The Canon tes-review says, that the Canon is best at 35mm.
The Canon has been Nr. 3 After Leica and the Sigma.

Said this I use the 17-35 and am amazed how good zooms are.

I projected slides from this lens with a good projector and quality is very good IMO.

I also have a Leica 21mm, and even when shooting slides (when shooting digital I have no option to use the Leica lens) I kind of prefer the zoom compared to the Leica 21mm, without having the feeling, that there is a big difference. I bet, there is a difference when you do side by side comparison. But honestly, if you see it only when doing side by side, than I dont care.

I would rather get the 16-35 than the 14mm. Or I would look at the Sigma (but I dont trust this test I read)

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

--
Regards
Tom

JasperF · Jul 19, 2002

trust me, sigma 15-30 is something else, for almost one third of the money. I just got this lens, it is sharp in its rank, low barrel distortion, amazing lens, and it goes down to 15. one degree is almost 1x1.6=1.6 ( 2 degree wider). the only drawback is the filter which is mounted in the back. I am so surprized, you do not need L all the time. I have not had flare problem. since most wide angles are prone to catch any light that comes their ways, you just have to know how to shot.

Thomas Streng said:
Said this I use the 17-35 and am amazed how good zooms are.
I projected slides from this lens with a good projector and quality
is very good IMO.
I also have a Leica 21mm, and even when shooting slides (when
shooting digital I have no option to use the Leica lens) I kind of
prefer the zoom compared to the Leica 21mm, without having the
feeling, that there is a big difference. I bet, there is a
difference when you do side by side comparison. But honestly, if
you see it only when doing side by side, than I dont care.
I would rather get the 16-35 than the 14mm. Or I would look at the
Sigma (but I dont trust this test I read)

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...

--
Regards
Tom

Andrew Chiciak · Jul 19, 2002

I agree with dg..here is a test shot I did with this lens at B&H. Handheld
400 asa at F5.6. Incredible!

http://www.pbase.com/image/3218149/original

d.g said:
Thomas Streng said:

Said this I use the 17-35 and am amazed how good zooms are.
I projected slides from this lens with a good projector and quality
is very good IMO.
I also have a Leica 21mm, and even when shooting slides (when
shooting digital I have no option to use the Leica lens) I kind of
prefer the zoom compared to the Leica 21mm, without having the
feeling, that there is a big difference. I bet, there is a
difference when you do side by side comparison. But honestly, if
you see it only when doing side by side, than I dont care.
I would rather get the 16-35 than the 14mm. Or I would look at the
Sigma (but I dont trust this test I read)

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...

--
Regards
Tom

Click to expand...

--

--
Andy C

Jason Hutchinson · Jul 19, 2002

I think that beats my 24-85, nice showing.

Andrew Chiciak said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/3218149/original

d.g said:

Thomas Streng said:

Said this I use the 17-35 and am amazed how good zooms are.
I projected slides from this lens with a good projector and quality
is very good IMO.
I also have a Leica 21mm, and even when shooting slides (when
shooting digital I have no option to use the Leica lens) I kind of
prefer the zoom compared to the Leica 21mm, without having the
feeling, that there is a big difference. I bet, there is a
difference when you do side by side comparison. But honestly, if
you see it only when doing side by side, than I dont care.
I would rather get the 16-35 than the 14mm. Or I would look at the
Sigma (but I dont trust this test I read)

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...

--
Regards
Tom

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--
Andy C

JasperF · Jul 19, 2002

can you post a link to your sources german magazine thanks

Thomas Streng said:
Said this I use the 17-35 and am amazed how good zooms are.
I projected slides from this lens with a good projector and quality
is very good IMO.
I also have a Leica 21mm, and even when shooting slides (when
shooting digital I have no option to use the Leica lens) I kind of
prefer the zoom compared to the Leica 21mm, without having the
feeling, that there is a big difference. I bet, there is a
difference when you do side by side comparison. But honestly, if
you see it only when doing side by side, than I dont care.
I would rather get the 16-35 than the 14mm. Or I would look at the
Sigma (but I dont trust this test I read)

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...

--
Regards
Tom

Jason Hutchinson · Jul 19, 2002

It used to be here:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=2831035

I have saved copies from that web site at home.

Jason

d.g said:
Thomas Streng said:

Said this I use the 17-35 and am amazed how good zooms are.
I projected slides from this lens with a good projector and quality
is very good IMO.
I also have a Leica 21mm, and even when shooting slides (when
shooting digital I have no option to use the Leica lens) I kind of
prefer the zoom compared to the Leica 21mm, without having the
feeling, that there is a big difference. I bet, there is a
difference when you do side by side comparison. But honestly, if
you see it only when doing side by side, than I dont care.
I would rather get the 16-35 than the 14mm. Or I would look at the
Sigma (but I dont trust this test I read)

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...

--
Regards
Tom

Click to expand...

--

t_streng@t-online.de · Jul 19, 2002

if its important for you I could scan and email it to you;my email is [email protected]

d.g said:
Thomas Streng said:

Said this I use the 17-35 and am amazed how good zooms are.
I projected slides from this lens with a good projector and quality
is very good IMO.
I also have a Leica 21mm, and even when shooting slides (when
shooting digital I have no option to use the Leica lens) I kind of
prefer the zoom compared to the Leica 21mm, without having the
feeling, that there is a big difference. I bet, there is a
difference when you do side by side comparison. But honestly, if
you see it only when doing side by side, than I dont care.
I would rather get the 16-35 than the 14mm. Or I would look at the
Sigma (but I dont trust this test I read)

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...

--
Regards
Tom

Click to expand...

--

--
Regards
Tom

Marco · Jul 19, 2002

Jan Brittenson said:
At $1325 (B&H) including Bob Shell adapter the 18/4 T* sure is
very tempting.

I've bought the lens used for just a bit more than the EF 20/2.8 new.

If the results will satisfy me, well... I really don't care if I've spent some more bucks.
If Canon would release a 17(or 18) 2.8L it should be nice.

Take care
Marco

no name 3 · Jul 19, 2002

You can get the 18mm lens for under $700 used (that's KEH prices, I'm sure you can do better elsewhere)

My only concern is, how the heck do I use a polarizer on this lens?? The thread is 70mm, and the only (I swear, THE ONLY) adapter I could find was the Contax 70-86mm step up ring.

I did order one from KEH but cancelled the order, since, well, $700 may be cheap but it's still $700 and that's not money I can spare on this hobby (at least not this month).

Marco, post some images!!

Jason

Marco said:
Jan Brittenson said:

At $1325 (B&H) including Bob Shell adapter the 18/4 T* sure is
very tempting.

Click to expand...

I've bought the lens used for just a bit more than the EF 20/2.8 new.
If the results will satisfy me, well... I really don't care if I've
spent some more bucks.
If Canon would release a 17(or 18) 2.8L it should be nice.

Take care
Marco

--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net

JasperF · Jul 19, 2002

please if you can email me that. my email [email protected]

Thomas Streng said:
d.g said:

Thomas Streng said:

Said this I use the 17-35 and am amazed how good zooms are.
I projected slides from this lens with a good projector and quality
is very good IMO.
I also have a Leica 21mm, and even when shooting slides (when
shooting digital I have no option to use the Leica lens) I kind of
prefer the zoom compared to the Leica 21mm, without having the
feeling, that there is a big difference. I bet, there is a
difference when you do side by side comparison. But honestly, if
you see it only when doing side by side, than I dont care.
I would rather get the 16-35 than the 14mm. Or I would look at the
Sigma (but I dont trust this test I read)

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...

--
Regards
Tom

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--
Regards
Tom

Jason Hutchinson · Jul 19, 2002

d.g said:
Thomas Streng said:

d.g said:

Thomas Streng said:

Said this I use the 17-35 and am amazed how good zooms are.
I projected slides from this lens with a good projector and quality
is very good IMO.
I also have a Leica 21mm, and even when shooting slides (when
shooting digital I have no option to use the Leica lens) I kind of
prefer the zoom compared to the Leica 21mm, without having the
feeling, that there is a big difference. I bet, there is a
difference when you do side by side comparison. But honestly, if
you see it only when doing side by side, than I dont care.
I would rather get the 16-35 than the 14mm. Or I would look at the
Sigma (but I dont trust this test I read)

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...

--
Regards
Tom

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--
Regards
Tom

Click to expand...

--

Mary Kay Rubey · Jul 19, 2002

Steve,

I make my living doing residential real estate photography and producing brochures and other full-color advertising for the real estate industry, which seems to be right on the mark with your question. I'm using the D60, the 1D, and Canon's 14mm and 16-35mm lenses. I use the Canon 14mm for interior shots, but I use it on a 1D (for the widest FOV possible and more realistic colors). But the 14mm was too wide for exteriors, even on the D60, which I use for exterior shots. So I purchased the 16-35 and use that on the D60 for exteriors and on the 1D for the rare instances that I need to zoom for an interior shot. Although I think the 14mm is fantastic, I found it almost impossible to use for exteriors, even on the D60. It's just too wide. You need more flexibility. If you can have only one lens, you should be looking at the 16-35 or a comparable zoom.

MK

SteveX · Jul 19, 2002

Mary Kay Rubey said:
Steve,

I make my living doing residential real estate photography and
producing brochures and other full-color advertising for the real
estate industry, which seems to be right on the mark with your
question. I'm using the D60, the 1D, and Canon's 14mm and 16-35mm
lenses. I use the Canon 14mm for interior shots, but I use it on a
1D (for the widest FOV possible and more realistic colors). But the
14mm was too wide for exteriors, even on the D60, which I use for
exterior shots. So I purchased the 16-35 and use that on the D60
for exteriors and on the 1D for the rare instances that I need to
zoom for an interior shot. Although I think the 14mm is fantastic,
I found it almost impossible to use for exteriors, even on the D60.
It's just too wide. You need more flexibility. If you can have only
one lens, you should be looking at the 16-35 or a comparable zoom.

MK

Mary Kay,

You are doing exactley what I plan to do with the D60. So, yes, you are right on the mark! I have been concerned (based upon what i have heard on here about the 16-35L) that this lense would not be very sharp at its wider end. Although the 14mm prime may be sharper than the 16-35 at 16mm, how does the zoom hold up to the prime at say 17-20mm? Also, what FOV range do you most commonly shoot exteriors with? Do you do any perspective correction in post processing to your images? I would think that with the 16-35 Zoom you would have perspective issues straight out of the camera. Perhaps with the 14mm, that is less of a problem?

I would prefer a 1D over the D60 do to the smaller 1.3x multiplier, but that camera is just too expensive for me.

Steve

Nill Toulme · Jul 19, 2002

This thread put me over the edge. Received a 16-35 today from Delta (in very prompt, courteous and cost-effective fashion, BTW). I knew I missed the wide angle since getting the D60, but didn't quite realize how much till I put this lens on it. Haven't wrung it out yet, but love it so far.

Nill

Mary Kay Rubey · Jul 22, 2002

Steve,

I do some perspective correction on photos shot with both lenses. Usually, I need to do only minor perspective correction on exteriors. Some things that can force major perspective corrections include terrain that prohibits keeping the camera level during shooting, i.e., the house is on a small cliff with no front yard and can't be shot from eye level, so the camera must be tipped upward.

When you tip the lens up or down, you'll have larger perspective corrections to make. Otherwise, they're minor for both lenses because you aren't taking advantage of the full image that the lens projects because of the D60's 1.6 multiplication factor (cropping). You have less correction since the perspective problems are most evident at the edges of an image which the D60 doesn't use. Perspective correction is so easy in PS that I don't give it a second thought. It's never caused a problem with either interior or exterior photos, but it is something that I do daily for many images.

Because of the high multiplication factor of the D60, I shoot the exteriors between 16 and 21 most of the time (equivalent to approximately 25 to 34mm with the multiplication factor taken into account). But it depends on where I can stand to get a good view that is unobstructed (due to trees, mailboxes, etc.) and it depends on how much foreground I want to include (landscaping in front of the house or a sweeping front lawn may or may not need to be included. It is also dependent on the house itself (sprawling ranch vs. narrow two-story condo). Sometimes, I'm forced to use the 1D with the 14mm lens due to the lay of the land, so to speak. Realtors never want the neighborhing properties to show if at all possible.

All shots are usually horizontal regardless of the orientation of the house because the realtors need to use the photos on the web in addition to brochures and advertising and none of the real estate web sites seems to accommodate vertical photos, not even for interior shots of grand staircases that are best done as verticals. All the real estate web sites that I'm familiar with require horizontal orientation in proportions that don't match traditional film proportions, which means that they don't match the D60 proportions either. So cropping is required for use on the web. And since clients want to use the brochure photos on the web, that must be kept in mind. I limit the number of verticals that I shoot and do so only for less important images (bathrooms, staircases, etc.) and only when a horizontal absolutely won't work.

I find the 16-35L acceptably sharp for my purposes. I use it for magazine cover photos and for the brochures that I produce in-house. I have a number of "L" lenses from the 14 to the 500. Although I like some lenses a lot better than others, I think for your purposes the 16-35 is more than adequate, and cheaper than the 14 by far. I can't say I've done a direct comparison of the 16-35 to the 14 in terms of sharpness since I keep each on a different camera body and use them for different purposes. But if you're really interested, I can go do some test shots with the D60 using each of the lenses. I just can't promise that it will happen in any great hurry. I struggle to keep up with the daily workload that I have and weekends are spent shooting wildlife.

I seldom have time to check any forums, so if you want to contact me directly for more information, please feel free to do so: [email protected]. Be sure that the subject line is recognizable since I don't open e-mails from addresses that I don't recognize unless the subject line is obvious. I have well over a decade of successful experience in creating real estate promotional materials and doing real estate photography and can probably more quickly and directly address your questions via e-mail.

Mary Kay Rubey

SteveX said:
Mary Kay Rubey said:

Steve,

I make my living doing residential real estate photography and
producing brochures and other full-color advertising for the real
estate industry, which seems to be right on the mark with your
question. I'm using the D60, the 1D, and Canon's 14mm and 16-35mm
lenses. I use the Canon 14mm for interior shots, but I use it on a
1D (for the widest FOV possible and more realistic colors). But the
14mm was too wide for exteriors, even on the D60, which I use for
exterior shots. So I purchased the 16-35 and use that on the D60
for exteriors and on the 1D for the rare instances that I need to
zoom for an interior shot. Although I think the 14mm is fantastic,
I found it almost impossible to use for exteriors, even on the D60.
It's just too wide. You need more flexibility. If you can have only
one lens, you should be looking at the 16-35 or a comparable zoom.

MK

Click to expand...

Mary Kay,

You are doing exactley what I plan to do with the D60. So, yes,
you are right on the mark! I have been concerned (based upon what
i have heard on here about the 16-35L) that this lense would not be
very sharp at its wider end. Although the 14mm prime may be
sharper than the 16-35 at 16mm, how does the zoom hold up to the
prime at say 17-20mm? Also, what FOV range do you most commonly
shoot exteriors with? Do you do any perspective correction in post
processing to your images? I would think that with the 16-35 Zoom
you would have perspective issues straight out of the camera.
Perhaps with the 14mm, that is less of a problem?
I would prefer a 1D over the D60 do to the smaller 1.3x multiplier,
but that camera is just too expensive for me.

Steve

Taz61703 · Jul 22, 2002

Mary Kay Rubey said:
I do some perspective correction on photos shot with both lenses.
Usually, I need to do only minor perspective correction on
exteriors.

Mary Kay...you give me some comfort in knowing that even someone such as yourself with over a decade of experience in this line of photography still has to correct for perspective. I often work hard at eliminating these perspective distortions, especially in interior shots, but am often disappointed when I open them up in PS.

Other than keeping the camera level and trying to pay close attention to verticals near the edge of the frame (not always easy to do)...do you have any "secrets" or tips you'd care to share on shooting interiors with a wide angle?

Thanks.

Mary Kay Rubey · Jul 23, 2002

Taz,

Extremely wide angle lenses will always require SOME perspective correction in Photoshop. However, if you're not careful about what vertical elements you're trying to keep straight, you'll end up with a bad shot that's hard to fix.

Some lenses are better than others. Canon's 14L requires less correction than one would think, certainly less than the local newspaper's 20mm lens that they use. I don't know exactly what lens they're using, but I've seen their results in print. The vertical elements at the edges of their photos are 15 degrees off vertical. So the lens does make a difference.

The reason I have to correct for perspective is that I deliberately don't keep the camera level for many interior shots. The clients want to show more floor and less ceiling. It makes the room look larger in their opinion. And unless the ceiling is spectacular (vaulted or beamed), it's usually best to avoid showing too much of it. However, gleaming hardwood floors with contrasting inlays or exquisite marble flooring are a must to include in the shot. So I have to tip the lens downward slightly for many shots; therefore, I have to correct perspective. If I keep the lens level, there is almost no need to correct perspective, especially with the cropping that occurs with digital bodies (D60 and 1D).

The best perspective tip that I can give you on shooting interiors is to look for your strongest vertical element toward the center of the frame and be sure that THAT element is truly vertical, especially when shooting a room or building at an angle as opposed to straight-on. Shooting straight on with a level camera doesn't require anything but the most minor perspective correction to make the vertical elements at the edges of the photo dead straight. Even my 14mm lens requires little correction if shooting straight-on and level. However, the best tip I received when I started out was to keep that strong vertical element in the center straight. All else falls into place from there.

The biggest challenge I have in shooting is making large rooms with a wall of brightly lit windows and the opposite dark end of the room both look good while still preserving the view out the window. The simple thing would be to not shoot directly at the windows. But when you're trying to sell multimillion-dollar real estate, the view of the lake, river, or whatever else out those windows is usually a huge selling point! So instead of avoiding the challenge, I work hard at trying to light the rest of the room enough that I can preserve the view out the windows without underexposing the rest of the room and making it look like a dark dungeon.

I have constant work from the real estate industry not because I'm the best photographer technically, but because I shoot pictures that really "sell" the property and make it look better than it really is. I know how to stage the room (what to take out or move to make the shot look good) and what view to shoot. I think my technical expertise and understanding of photography is just adequate.

Taz said:
Mary Kay Rubey said:

I do some perspective correction on photos shot with both lenses.
Usually, I need to do only minor perspective correction on
exteriors.

Click to expand...

Mary Kay...you give me some comfort in knowing that even someone
such as yourself with over a decade of experience in this line of
photography still has to correct for perspective. I often work
hard at eliminating these perspective distortions, especially in
interior shots, but am often disappointed when I open them up in PS.

Other than keeping the camera level and trying to pay close
attention to verticals near the edge of the frame (not always easy
to do)...do you have any "secrets" or tips you'd care to share on
shooting interiors with a wide angle?

Thanks.

Search

16-35L or 14mm prime?

[email protected]

Forum Enthusiast

JasperF

Forum Enthusiast

Andrew Chiciak

Senior Member

Jason Hutchinson

Forum Pro

JasperF

Forum Enthusiast

Jason Hutchinson

Forum Pro

[email protected]

Forum Enthusiast

Marco

Senior Member

no name 3

Forum Enthusiast

JasperF

Forum Enthusiast

Jason Hutchinson

Forum Pro

Mary Kay Rubey

New member

SteveX

Well-known member

Nill Toulme

Veteran Member

Mary Kay Rubey

New member

Taz61703

Leading Member

Mary Kay Rubey

New member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts