Whould the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II or the14mm f/2.8L II be better for time lapes photography (landscapes) ?
1789337
I have the 14mm attached to a 5D Mk III. I'm no expert on time lapse photography but for landscapes, I don't see why not. The lens takes really nice tack sharp landscapes that really pop when enlarged. I've also noticed that on a sunny day with good light the blues and hues of the sky and clouds if they are part of the landscape come out particularly nice. I will tell you that unless you are looking for extremely high quality photos for your time lapse arrangement, this EF series lense may be a bit over kill for the price, if that's your sole intent of using it, I'd go with one of the less expensive varieties. But if money is no object, spend it if you got it!! I have the 14mm attached to a 5D Mk III. I'm no expert on time lapse photography but for landscapes, I don't see why not. The lens takes really nice tack sharp landscapes that really pop when enlarged. I've also noticed that on a sunny day with good light the blues and hues of the sky and clouds if they are part of the landscape come out particularly nice. I will tell you that unless you are looking for extremely high quality photos for your time lapse arrangement, this EF series lense may be a bit over kill for the price, if that's your sole intent of using it, I'd go with one of the less... » Read More I have the 14mm attached to a 5D Mk III. I'm no expert on time lapse photography but for landscapes, I don't see why not. The lens takes really nice tack sharp landscapes that really pop when enlarged. I've also noticed that on a sunny day with good light the blues and hues of the sky and clouds if they are part of the landscape come out particularly nice. I will tell you that unless you are looking for extremely high quality photos for your time lapse arrangement, this EF series lense may be a bit over kill for the price, if that's your sole intent of using it, I'd go with one of the less expensive varieties. But if money is no object, spend it if you got it!! « Show Less
1789338
My choice would be always using a prime lens, for sharper images although you might not notice the difference.
1789339
14mm f/2.8L is a "fish eye" type of lens...then, your choice...the glass is a masterpiece...I did never use 16-35mm f/2.8L II, but it is providing some zoom flexibility...
1789340
I've not done time lapse landscapes. But, I've done landscape with both lenses and I like the 16-35 better.
1041294
I would recommend 23mm 1.4. The 35mm is a great lens, but 23mm is more useful as general purpose, also AF is faster and quieter. If you are not willing to spend for 23mm's cost, then 35mm 1.4 is next choice. Compare to 23mm 1.4, the AF of 35mm is slower, noisier. Also, 35mm is too narrow as general purpose while it's too short for portraits in my taste. I think 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 are great lenses to have, if you can afford them both.
1173524
I've owned both, heres my opinion: the 24-105mm is best for a travel lens when you dont wanna be annoyed by changing lenses. The 24mm f/2.8 is more if you want the best sharpness and contrast with less destortion. It is in the pro league of prime lenses. The zoom lens is just a good but not great all arounder that does a lot though.
1810953
either the 200 2.8L or 70-200 2.8L are excellent for that purpose. They are significantly better than the lenses you own. In that focal length they are top of the line.
173418
Hi, I was faced with the same dilemma last year. I chose 14-45. It is a sharp lens with good auto focus and stabilization. I use it mainly as a travel lens and photograph historical monuments.Prakash
11422
My suggestions would be first the Canon 24-105mm F4.0 IS L and if the price is too much, go for the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
494445
Hi, for the SL1 I think you should get the EF-S 18-135 STM version. It's slightly sharper. Also, the 18-135 STM version is more versatile and has larger apertures on equivalent focal lengths versus the 18-135 non stm and 18-55.
2004640
Which one did you finish up with? I'm interested because you said that you shoot mainly lanscapes, so why would you part with the 17-40mm? If your option had been for the 16-35mm f2.8L, I could have understood the reason, but a 24mm lens on any new camera (assuming it's not a film body, 5D or 1Ds) is only going to give you 31mm (1D) or 38mm (the rest). Not much good for landscape work.BTW, the 24-70mm eats the 24-105mm alive when it comes to contrast and sharpness, IS or not!
678605
In my opinion it depends on what your main reason for using the lens is. If you don't NEED the 2.8 then go with the 4, I don't think IQ is dramatically better or worse. Unless there was ever a time while you were using the f/4 that you were like "man I wish I could stop down to 2.8," I would just stick to the f/4.Edit: Just saw on another reply you said something about portraits, if you are going to use the lens for portraits at all the 2.8 is amazing, the bokeh is simply stunning.
501122
Thanks for the feedback. I ended up getting the Canon 17-55/2.8IS. It was more expensive, but I had come across some extra money. I've had that lens for several month now and it's awesome. The zoom range is excellent, it's great having f2.8 through the whole range, and the IS adds probably at least 3 stops. It's very sharp when I do my part, especially when it's stopped down a couple clicks. I would still love to get a lens like I described in my OP, but I'm looking at a wide angle zoom and a better telephoto lens before that one.
2065294
Well at these focal lengths it's all about compression. Either one will do well but the 135 wide open is probably the way to go since you start at f/2 vs f/2.8 for the 200mm. Your bokeh will be really good on either wide open but in reality be better on the 135 since you will be at f/2 as you're picking up a stop or so. If you are only going to use it for portraits and you don't need the reach you should get the 135mm since it is the f/2 golden child greatness of Canon's lens selections and you can take advantage of it with your FF sensor wide open. Here's a video that shows all the aspects of compression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fzh9eQDhL4
2227373
There are many choices depending on your budget. But of the 5 Canon lenses I own, the 17-40L is the one I use most. It has excellent optics, a wide zoom range, and is fast enough for most situations.
1312084
get the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Pancake Lens - sharper, cheaper, betterThe Nikon 35mm 1.8 is not sharp until f2.8 anyway
1130016
I have both. The f/4 has only two advantages: it's much more portable, and it's much cheaper. But if you can afford the f/2.8, and if you can bring it where you want to use it (it's big, and you will probably want at least a monopod)--well, it's an amazing lens. Haven't regretted buying mine for an instant.
2043803
The main difference appears to be the aperture. The f/2.8 will work better in lower light giving you at least an extra stop of light to play with. This means shorter exposures in lower light than the f/4-5.6.
1381521
That's a bit like asking what length of string should I use? First question; what is the application? Second question; crop or full frame (FF)? Third question, what focal lengths do you already cover? On FF the 24mm is generally a better landscape lens than a 35mm and 35mm is generally better for journalistic type photography, or just walking around. On a crop, 24mm is about the same (a little longer) as the view one would get from 35mm on a full frame. I love the 35mm on a crop as well, which is closer to the classic "standard" lens (50mm), which will be generally better for street. When I say generally, I mean that it is often more appropriate to use one focal length in these situations that others, but I have seen portraits with wide lenses and telephotos used for landscapes to great effect. Sorry, I dont believe a better answer can exist without additional information.
2074843
I'm not familiar with the lens you are using but the 16-35 is pretty fast. I prefer the 24 mm 1.4 for low light though