click_clocks Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>Hi, do you think If you have a Canon 16-35mm MKII in a 5D Body <br> and you have a Sigma 14mm in you bag, Do you think you will use the 14mm again? or the only use will be extra Weight :) ?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainer_t Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>14mm to 16mm does not sound overly much, but the difference in FOV is quite noticable. So, I reckon yes you would use the 14mm again.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stamos Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>I agree with Rainer above. When you go wide every single mm counts. So for me it would not be just extra weight in my bag.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>I doubt it. But a lot depends on whether one or the other had better image quality - for example if the Sigma 14mm had much superior image quality, then you might use it. I would hope the Sigma has better distortion control for example, but I've no idea whether it does.</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>I would if the 14mm had ring USM and was at least as fast as f/2, otherwise not.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucafoto Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>Only if it were Canon's 14mm, not Sigma's.<br> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-14mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_moss2 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>I sold my 16-35 and bought the Canon 14mm II. EXIF indicated that I was almost always shooting wide at 16mm or zoomed in to 35. (And sometimes I couldn't backup another 2 feet.) I use my 24-70 most of the time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stp Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>I agree with Luca: only if it were Canon's. Even then, I'd have to think hard about an adapter and Nikon's 14-24 lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel barrera houston, Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>I don't have any zooms under 24 mm, every lens is a prime, Tokina 17mm f3.5, Sigma 15mm fisheye, and Tamron 14mm. At some point I will buy the new Canon 17mm TS-E</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stamos Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>Yes, it would be better if it was the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II. If price was not problem. But as mentioned above, if you have that top-gun lens then the zoom may stay at home. You may just add Canon EF 35mm 1.4L and you are perfect!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen_fitter Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>It would have to be a conon fixed focal point lens to make it worth wild.<br> owen fitter photography<br /> www.fitterphoto.com <br /> <br /> <br /> 114 wharton st. | philadelphia, pa 19147<br /> tel: 215.271.5544 | owen@fitterphoto.com</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_smith2 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>I had the original 14/2.8 L and the 17-35/2.8 L and replaced them both with a Sigma 15-30/3.5-4.5. I wasn't using the 14 enough to keep it any longer.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p dir="ltr">No. </p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr">I have a 10-22 which is a 16-35 equivalent and I don't wish for anyhing wider. </p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p> <p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14mm 2.8l Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>I kept my 14mm 2.8 Tamron when I added 16-35mm II. If you appreciate the ultra wide there's nothing like 14mm perspective on full frame. That said I may ditch the 14mm Tamron now that I have 14-24mm 2.8 Nikon. This Nikon zoom is an incredible lens. I wish Canon made a lens like it. Since they don't I also added D700 to drive it. Finding the ultimate 14mm can complicate things. Though I have a friend who reports his newly issued 14mm II Eos is clearly superior to Eos 14mm version I. So he sold his 14mm 2.8 V.1 already to recoup some of the outlay for 14mm II.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p><strong><em>"Do you think you will use the 14mm again?" </em></strong><br />Yes I think so; definitely, regarding the Focal Length and leaving IQ out of the question - I have not used that Sigma lens.<br />FYI:<br /><a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00ItIu">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00ItIu</a><br /><a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00LpYO">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00LpYO</a><br /><br />I have subsequently purchased the 16 - 35L and 24L but I am still holding off on the EF14mm - but have decided I want it (Ver.II) - so my answer is yes I would use both - 14mm is a different perspective. <br />I do not think Colin has yet purchased a 14mm, either: if he is listening he might answer or I'll ask him next we talk - and let you know his feelings on this.<br />I am glad Lindy Stone answered: Hmm I do not think the Nikon Zoom is for me . . . <br />Lindy's input was a great help to me, before, on the thread I linked to, thanks again, Lindy.<br />WW</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_e Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 <p>I usualy carry the Canon 14 mm and the 16-35 mm with me for use on a 5D.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 <p>If I had a Canon 14mm lens then I probably would. However, with the Sigma I am not so sure. I have the 16-35 F2.8 II and I also have an old (Film only) Sigma 14mm F3.5. While the Sigma has a wider field of view than the Cannon it is optically pretty poor and suffers badly from flare. I assume you have the newer 14mm F2.8 from Sigma which works on digital bodies. If this lens is anything like it's predecessor then I would suggest that you would rarely or never use it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walter_strong5 Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 <p>After purchasing my 16-35 Canon the 14MM Sigma just takes up space in my bag.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irene_s1 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 <p>I just bought Canon 16-35mm 2.8L II, used on 5dM2 body. I also have 24-70mm 2.8L, and actually I am thinking I should have bought the 14mm instead. The reason is, I can just use my 24-70mm at 24mm and make one step backwards, and get the same "wide" as the 16mm.<br> Does anyone has the same thought here?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 <p> <p dir="ltr">One step backwards will get you from 24mm PoV to 16mm PoV? I don't think so.</p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p> <p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> <p dir="ltr"> </p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now