lens for 6D

[William W]

. . . a Canon 6D, . . . I want a wide angle, fast lens. I've been looking at Canon's 24mm 1.4 prime . . . Anyone have experience with this lens or another that you like? Please keep in mind that I want a prime. . . I'm looking to do some shots of the night sky, some light painting and stuff in the woods and mountains near my house . . . The reason I am looking at this as a first lens is this: Primes are sharper than zooms. I love a sharply focused image. Primes have more light gathering ability in general. I want that shallow DOF sometimes, and I would rather have three primes than one zoom. I don't want to buy a zoom now and then re-cover its focal length as I purchase the primes I really wanted to begin with. I'll be patient enough to wait until I can get what I really want rather than buying a zoom. . . I'm glad you're willing to help. I just don't want a zoom lens.

I use the EF 24 F/1.4 on EOS 5D’s.

It is the second-best Canon Lens for Night Skies without Star Trails. The best Canon Lens for this purpose is the EF 24F/1.4 MkII.

For Portraiture, at a pinch and with skill, it can be used instead of the EF35 F/1.4 especially as a Street Lens but for most shots you will need keep the Shooting Distance as if you were using a35mm lens and crop a bit in Post Production.

For Landscape Work I generally use a Zoom Lens: The Canon L Series Zoom Lenses and appropriate Sharpening Technique will produce excellent results. Perhaps the EF 24 to 105L F/4 IS maybe the “worst” at 24mm compared to the other six options (24 to 70/2.8; 24 to 70/2.8MkII; 24 to 70F/4 IS; 16 to 35/2.8; 16 to 35/2.8MkII and 17 to 40/4) – but really none of these lenses are garbage, which is a term we can now apply, to many of the zoom lenses of the Film Era.

But whilst all these Zoom Lenses can zoom, not one can make sub F/2.8.

Also zooms have a few other ‘limitations’ which include but are not limited to: more prevalence to Flare especially Veiling Flare; more prevalence to Ghost Images and also their lens hoods are a compromise.

I am NOT arguing against the others who suggest you consider Zoom Lenses – but I am (hopefully) addressing your question about “wanting ONLY Prime Lenses” – and hopefully clarifying a perspective for you, because I think that you might be placing too much emphasis on what Zoom Lenses WERE BEFORE in Film Days and not what they are now.

I think that you should seriously consider:

 IF you need F/1.4 – you very well might – I do and that’s why I have a cache of very fast Prime Lenses

 If you need the to shoot close to wide open and have minimal Flare and minimal Ghost Images and in shooting scenarios where you might not be able to adjust the shooting position to address same – I do and that’s another reason why I have fast Primes

 If you have (only one camera) the TIME to change Lenses when you need a different Focal length - OR - you carry several cameras with different Primes loaded on them - I usually shoot with two Cameras and I usually carry three loaded cameras (but I often have one zoom lens loaded on one of them).

If I were usually shooting the Subjects that you have listed, and I were VERY serious about those Subjects (particularly the Night Skies and Light Painting in the Woods) - I would by the EF 24 F/1.4 MkII and use it as my general Wide Angle “Landscape” lens, also. But because I do not shoot very many night skies, when I do shoot Landscapes - I generally use a zoom, because the capacity to zoom is very useful to me AND for general Landscape work one does not usually need very fast lenses.

So I think you should really think hard about why you want a prime and whether you actually “need” a Prime or not – that said IF you are anyway half keen to make Night Skies , with or without Trails: then the 24/1.4 is superior in that regard, as I mentioned, it is only eclipsed by the 24/1.4 MkII.

If I were only interested in shooting “non people” stuff – and I wanted a set of three primes on a 6D, I would probably choose to use the 24/1.4 L MkII; the 50/2.5 and the 135/2 L.

WW

[roygbiv]

Hello Bill, Yours is the most helpful response so far.Thank you for your specificity and non-assuming approach. Everyone has been helpful. I am grateful to them all.

I have found that my view on lenses is outdated. I have nearly decided to buy a zoom, but I cannot decide which one. However no one has told me what you have about using the 24 1.4 and the Mark 2 for getting images of the night sky. I mean no one else has ranked a lens for that purpose. So thank you for that. I have to think about what I want and how much I want it. These lenses are priced aggressively, as you know.

Thank you for specifying which primes you recommend for non-people stuff. When I think of a 50mm I think of street photography. What non-people stuff are you talking about pertaining to the 50/2.5 and why not get a faster one?

If I buy a prime I know I will be limited by subject matter. I'm fine with that. I have always enjoyed being alone with a camera. I enjoy being around people too. I just enjoy having a camera. So I'll be fine if I get one super duper prime lens. I can use it around town getting cityscapes and landscapes too. But the 6D has that -3EV sensor. I want to capitalize on that. I have a long-time affection for a starry sky.

I did not know zooms were more susceptible to flare and ghosting. I don't know how the lens hood for zooms is a compromise either. Is that at the wide end only?

My situation really does not refer to need. It's only about what I want. So I have some flexibility in choosing a lens. I sincerely appreciate that you took the time to give me a detailed response.

[roygbiv]

Thank you all for helping me get up to speed on modern lenses. My view was outdated. I'm still considering a prime as my first lens, my only lens for a while, but I'm also considering a zoom. If I get a zoom I don't know which one. Price, weight and performance are the big issues for any lens. My camera is light so a light lens would be nice. My camera is good in the dark. I would like to capitalize on that. But the prices are awful on some of the lenses. Still I may get one of those expensive ones.

I really appreciate your photos which demonstrate sharpness and DOF. Thank you for your perspectives on lens pros and cons. I'm surprised at the number and length of responses in this forum. That is the responses to my question. Thank you all.

[RustBeltRaw]

I did not know zooms were more susceptible to flare and ghosting. I don't know how the lens hood for zooms is a compromise either. Is that at the wide end only?

It's actually at the longer ends only. Imagine if you had a lens hood designed to hit the edges of a 100mm lens's field of view. Pop that same hood on a 35mm, and you'll probably see it in the 35mm field of view. Since a zoom goes from a wide field to a narrower one, the hoods must be designed to avoid the wide field of view, which makes them shorter than ideal for the long end.

[Adrian]

I would be interested in William's view on the 16-35 f2.8L for night skies. I have used this quite successfully for this purpose (mostly Aurora Borealis) on a 5DIII and I also like it as a walk around lens in cities. It is light and reasonably compact (though the hood is cumbersome due to the width) and I would think it may be a good compromise for the stated purposes. Unflattering for portraiture though. Price is not exorbitant for an L.

[William W]

. . . view on the 16-35 f2.8L for night skies. I have used this quite successfully for this purpose (mostly Aurora Borealis) on a 5DIII and I also like it as a walk around lens in cities. It is light and reasonably compact (though the hood is cumbersome due to the width) and I would think it may be a good compromise for the stated purposes. Unflattering for portraiture though. Price is not exorbitant for an L.

Good morning Adrian. There are many aspects to my personal view:

Specifically for Night Skies –
The EF 16 to 35 MKII would be better than the EF 16 to 35. This would be so in theory, but I have never done an A/B of those two lenses with that particular Subject. But I have done an A/B of the two lenses and that convinced me that the 16 to 35 MkII was superior for my general purposes, so I think that a sharp eye would eventually notice the difference between the two lenses if that eye were only shooting Night Skies.

The point about “good compromise” is noteworthy and indeed having a RANGE of Focal Lengths adds a lot of value to the shot of a night sky depending upon what part and how much of the sky one wants to capture and where the camera is situated on the earth’s surface.

I believe that Colin Southern uses a 16 to 35 for much (most?) of his landscape work – and in his vast range of beautiful photos there are many “Night Landscape Scenes”, though I have not seen any “Night Skies” specifically. Colin’s general view on the 16 to 35 vs. 16 to 35MkII would be of worth to this conversation: notwithstanding, Colin’s views generally have great worth, IMO. Actually I am now interested in what 16 to 35 zoom he actually does use: he’d probably shoot around F/5.6~F/8 for much of his work so he might be using the original version of the lens.

In this regard, for example, I use the 16 to 35 MkII, but I have the original version of the 24/1.4, because for MY USES I see no VALUE in getting the 24/1.4MkII, though have used the 24/1.4 MkII version and I can see some differences.

*

The point about what camera one is using is also relevant apropos: high quality HIGH ISO.
HOWEVER, (specifically for night skies and more specifically nights skies WITHOUT STAR TRAILS), the fact is no matter how good the 5DMkIII is at (for example) ISO3200, it will be better at ISO 1600 and better again at ISO 800.

So therein is the big compromise and the bottom line question: For a 24mm lens the EF 24/1.4 MkII is nothing short of “stunning” at F/1.4 and at F/2.0 it is “incredible” . . . and the EF 16 to 35 will always be those one or two stops slower and hence for any given Shutter Speed one will have to bump the ISO those one or two stops.

[Explanation for those not versed in “Night Skies”: The Shutter Speed required is of great importance. One should research ‘The 600 Rule for Astrophotography’ - and then note that many specialists in this area use ‘The 500 Rule’ and some use ‘The 400 Rule’]

***

As “a good compromise for the stated purposes” :

Yes, I agree. I was going to write that as my suggestion as a Zoom Lens in response to Roy’s last comments. If I were Roy the 16 to 35 MkII would be a lens that I would very carefully consider for the purposes that he has thus far started, and to give the added FLEXIBILITY of many Focal Lengths.

When considering carefully the “Night Skies” aspect, I would be looking at two main points:

1. The expected ISO that I would be using for the shots I wanted. My guess is Roy, when comparing F/2.8 to a range of F/1.4~F/2.8, he will be looking around ISO 800~6400 to maintain a Shutter Speed of (typically) sub 20 seconds.

2. the other major quantifiable for “Night Skies” (without star trails) would be how the 16 to 35 performs apropos Ghost Images – I don’t have enough experience in Astrophotography to give a definitive on that particular point – I can only say as I have both the zoom and the prime I would use the prime.

*

I do see one exception to making any comparison between a Prime Lens and a Zoom Lens , as I do understand his comment.

My situation really does not refer to need. It's only about what I want. So I have some flexibility in choosing a lens.

Only last week I bought a fixed lens camera, because I wanted it, more than I needed it. And to my great surprise I was given a Christmas present of a lovely “want” that will cost me a lot of money for every packet of 8 film shots that I make with it.

So, I think that a lot of Roy’s choices will be predicated upon the pleasure he wants to derive from ‘the doing’ as well as the results he will enjoy in ‘the outcomes’.

***

On a side note – I don’t think that lenses, of themselves, are ‘unflattering’ for Portraiture. But I think I understand what you were driving at. The 16 to 35 is not a lens “that I would often use for Portraiture”.

BUT for “Street Portraiture” a 35mm Lens (on 5D’s) would be my most preferred choice of Focal Length – and I am not alone in that choice. And I have used the 16 to 35 at wider than 35mm (on 5D’s) for Portraiture.

***

On other responses:

I have found that my view on lenses is outdated.

Good. You are now in a much better position to make the best choice.

. . .specifying which primes you recommend for non-people stuff. When I think of a 50mm I think of street photography. What non-people stuff are you talking about pertaining to the 50/2.5 and why not get a faster one?

OK. I need to be pedantic. I was not ‘recommending’ what set of three Primes YOU should buy for YOUR needs/wants. I have some but still little idea what exactly is inside your head apropos your needs and wants.

I mainly make Photographs of People and I have a specific interest in limited other areas of making Photographs that do not include people in the frame. But I have a wide experience in making many various types of Photographs under various conditions and I have used many lenses and cameras in so doing.

So, based upon what I am interested in doing, I had to think really hard to exit “people” from my mind’s eye to then come up with a three prime lens(Canon) kit for a 6D for doing things that I would normally not by my first choice, choose to do for "me".

I can provide you with my rationale of the three choices selected from all the Canon Lens which I have used:

The Wide Lens
The24/1.4MkII we have discussed. I have no general need to go wider than 24mm for mostly all ‘non people’ work - and if I did with my trusty and very accurate tripod head I could stitch.

Arguably I could make use of the TS-E24 MkII, mostly for interior work. I particularly like older buildings especially Places of Worship; but I would not give up the F/1.4 for the Tilt / Shift functionality, so I would choose the EF 24/1.4MkII as my Wide Prime.

The Normal Lens
I would want a medium/normal Prime. I would want this because it is ‘what my eye sees’.

Of all the offerings Canon has in that range I would choose the 50/2.5 because it is so very flat and so very sharp and has macro capacity.

The F/2.5 is not really of such consequence apropos Shallow DoF. In fact there is much hype about Shallow DoF and much of it is ‘hype’ in my opinion. DoF is directly related to the Framing of the Shot. I cannot envisage many framings of ‘not people subjects’ using a 50mm lens on a 6D that would require larger than F/2.5 to enhance the image with less DoF.

One example that I can think of, would be (and I have done this) to pick out one key on a piano keyboard:
Using a 5D and a lens set at Av = F/2.5 and a SD = 600mm.
The FoV ≈ 400mm x 270mm and the DoF ≈ 16mm
Increasing the Aperture to F/1.4, the DoF becomes about 9mm.

Sure that is a shallower DoF, but is it necessary? For anyone who has a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 and a FF Camera do the example exercise, as I think it is liberating for many, to see how infrequently F/1.4~F/2.2 is actually used to make a MEASURABLE impact on the final image apropos the “Shallow DoF”, for these normal focal length lenses that is the hype on many forums and camera clubs.

This is even so for Portraiture. Using a 50mm lens (on a 5D/6D) for Portraits it is very rare that one would “need” F/2.2 or faster, specifically for a more Shallow DoF.

The Telephoto Lens
I would want a short / medium telephoto lens in my three lens kit. I would want a telephoto for a mild compression and I would want clarity and when I did want shallow DoF I would want crispness at the edges of the frame.

The 135/2L is arguably the best lens Canon makes. It can be used with the 1.4EF Tele Converter to equivalent 189/2.8. The least stated about the 135/2 perhaps states more: its reputation precedes its imagery.

*

One ‘recommendation’ to you, is to look at what Focal Lengths you used with your Film Cameras and note what purposes they served for you.

*

On a side note – I have spoken only about Canon Lenses. Kathy (or others) might have already mentioned this (unusually I have not read all the responses to this thread) – you might consider (older) Manual Focus / Manual Aperture Primes as a much less expensive purchase.

***

I did not know zooms were more susceptible to flare and ghosting.

Flare and Ghosting is (usually) more likely / problematic at the WIDE end.

***

I don't know how the lens hood for zooms is a compromise either. Is that at the wide end only?

As per the reasons Lex wrote.

Specifically: ANY wider than the widest Focal Length, the Lens Hood is a compromise on a Zoom Lens.

There are exceptions to the statement above. I know of one:

The EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 USM has a lens hood which does NOT attach to the end of the lens barrel but it attached to the Lens’s body. When the lens is zoomed to the WIDE END the lens barrel EXTENDS, rendering the Lens hood ‘short’. When the lens is zoomed to the TELEPHOTO END the lens barrel RETRACTS rendering the lens hood ‘long’.

This is the main reason why I choose to use the EF24 to 70F/2.8 USM and not the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 MkII USM.

WW

[Adrian]

Instructive as ever William. Thank you. It is the 16-35Mk II that we have as it happens, and this was purchased on Colin's advice.

To put a little flesh on the "not ideal for portraiture" remark, what I meant was that for classic posed portraits, my experience is that I get more flattering results from the 70-200 f2.8L (latest version). I use the 16-35 a great deal though for street photography, as it is hard to beat when you can get close the subject or have no option but to be close. I highly recommend it as a flexible tool.

I fully take the point about limitations for night work: 1.4 trumps 2.8. But most amateurs like me have limitations on how many lenses we can either afford to buy or indeed have the energy to lug about. For me, the lens I actually have with me is the one I am most likely to use...

Kind regards

Adrian

[Colin Southern]

I believe that Colin Southern uses a 16 to 35 for much (most?) of his landscape work – and in his vast range of beautiful photos there are many “Night Landscape Scenes”, though I have not seen any “Night Skies” specifically. Colin’s general view on the 16 to 35 vs. 16 to 35MkII would be of worth to this conversation: notwithstanding, Colin’s views generally have great worth, IMO. Actually I am now interested in what 16 to 35 zoom he actually does use: he’d probably shoot around F/5.6~F/8 for much of his work so he might be using the original version of the lens.

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the kind words.

I'm using the EF 16-35mm F2.8L UMS II version of the lens. Mostly my apertures are dictated by wanting to gather as much light as possible or attenuate as much light as possible, but anything's possible "on the night" (I really haven't noted much of what apertures I've used over the years).

Generally the lens is great, although on a FF body I find sometimes my EF24-70 F2.8L USM is a better bet; it's not often I'll need to go wider than 24mm, but often longer than 35mm is handy to have available (my personal opinion is that too many people get overly obsessed with wide-angle for landscape; if you don't have a foreground point of interest then often all they capture is hundreds of miles of mountain ranges, and very little detail).

[Colin Southern]

Instructive as ever William. Thank you. It is the 16-35Mk II that we have as it happens, and this was purchased on Colin's advice.

To put a little flesh on the "not ideal for portraiture" remark, what I meant was that for classic posed portraits, my experience is that I get more flattering results from the 70-200 f2.8L (latest version). I use the 16-35 a great deal though for street photography, as it is hard to beat when you can get close the subject or have no option but to be close. I highly recommend it as a flexible tool.

I fully take the point about limitations for night work: 1.4 trumps 2.8. But most amateurs like me have limitations on how many lenses we can either afford to buy or indeed have the energy to lug about. For me, the lens I actually have with me is the one I am most likely to use...

Kind regards

Adrian

WA and UWA lenses aren't necessarily a "bad thing" for portraiture, but you have to know your tool ie "keep the subject away from the edges" and "don't even think about close-up" (unless your wanting perspective distortion as part of the effect):

[Colin Southern]

I did not know zooms were more susceptible to flare and ghosting. I don't know how the lens hood for zooms is a compromise either. Is that at the wide end only?

It really depends on the shooting situation; if bright light sources (usually the sun) are well away from the field of view (ie not able to hit the front element) then even a "compromised" zoom hood will work just fine.

Legendary street photographer Jay Maisel doesn't use a lens hood at all -- I think his exact words are "If you need to shade the lens then use your damn hand!"; all they often do is make you more conspicuous. And that guy makes more money from his photos shot on a 28-300mm zoom lens - with no hood - at high ISOs - than all of us put together (literally!). There has to be a message in there for us somewhere. I haven't met the man personally, but I've followed a couple of videos by Scott Kelby featuring him, and the man is a true legend; I think I have probably more respect for him than just about any other photographer that I know of.

Normally ghosting is only an issue in extreme contrast situations (eg point light sources at night); UV filters do make it worse in those situations (so that's one time you may remove them), but with or without, you'll still get ghosting anyway in those situations (even with primes).

I've nothing against primes (as I say, I have more of them than zooms), but unless you're made of money, about the only difference between a prime and a quality zoom at the same focal length is that the prime will probably have a wider max aperture. Back in the film (and early digital days) that was a HUGE advantage (essential in fact), but times have changed -- I can't recall seeing any ASA 128000 film! These days with high-ISO modes we don't need the wide apertures that we did from days gone by as much, as a rule - so - for those on a budget, they might just as well buy a zoom and just leave it at a particular length to "simulate a prime" if that's the FoV that they're after.

[William W]

It is the 16-35Mk II that we have as it happens, and this was purchased on Colin's advice.

I thought that was so. I remember the thread – I think you started it. I wanted to clarify, especially to Roy, that we were discussing the MkII Version of that lens.

***

To put a little flesh on the "not ideal for portraiture" remark, what I meant was that for classic posed portraits, my experience is that I get more flattering results from the 70-200 f2.8L (latest version). I use the 16-35 a great deal though for street photography, as it is hard to beat when you can get close the subject or have no option but to be close. I highly recommend it as a flexible tool.

I could guess your views were so. Again my response was serving to articulate more precisely (our) ideas and (our) opinions for the greater audience. I personally particularly don’t like propagating the idea that there are “Portrait Lenses”.

***

I fully take the point about limitations for night work: 1.4 trumps 2.8. But most amateurs like me have limitations on how many lenses we can either afford to buy or indeed have the energy to lug about. For me, the lens I actually have with me is the one I am most likely to use...

Sage.

That’s what this thread is all about for Roy. Most bang for the buck and most uses for one lens, especially if it is a Prime that he chooses. . . and that's why he should seriously consider a zoom.

*

BTW it was a Fuji x100s that I bought last week, it hasn’t really left my hands since – it is a wonderful camera.

Kind Regards to you too. Thank you for your comments.

WW

[William W]

I'm using the EF 16-35mm F2.8L UMS II version of the lens. Mostly my apertures are dictated by wanting to gather as much light as possible or attenuate as much light as possible, but anything's possible "on the night" (I really haven't noted much of what apertures I've used over the years). . . etc

Ta.

All noted.

Have a great day,

Bill

[William W]

Environmental Portraiture:

WA and UWA lenses aren't necessarily a "bad thing" for portraiture, but you have to know your tool ie "keep the subject away from the edges" and "don't even think about close-up" (unless your wanting perspective distortion as part of the effect):

For Colin's Portrait, one critique might be:

“the Subject is brought out or is breaking out of her Environment. This might be the Artist’s vision to represent her age; her enthusiasm; her growth and similar characteristics of a free spirited and vibrant girl out in the fresh air . . .”


*

On the other hand, a wide angle lens can be used in Portraiture to purposely ‘contain’ the Subject within an Environment:


Peter Sesselmann Artist
©AJ Group Pty Ltd

WW

[William W]

Roy:

I meant to post this link earlier - FYI

Start at the first image it gives you the shooting details.

Double click on each of the images to see them "large".

***

You might be interested in a rough but practical optical vignette comparison of such a fast wide lens.

This is F/8 (top left) to F/1.4 (bottom middle) in one third stops - the two close ups of the fence are space fillers.


WW

[roygbiv]

I apologize to Lex for unknowingly overlooking the comment about how lens hoods work. It was a good explanation.

[Benny]

Check out Samyang 14mm f/2.8.

Heard good reviews but don't own one yet.
Love to heard feedbacks in regard to this lens.

[William W]

Check out Samyang 14mm f/2.8.
Heard good reviews but don't own one yet.
Love to heard feedbacks in regard to this lens.

That’s certainly wide: but still two stops slower than F/1.4.
It is Manual Focus and Stop Down TTL Metering.
There are several reports of ∞ focus being way beyond infinity, so that would possibly cause problems for the “Night Skies” the OP is considering using the lens to capture.

If I wanted to save money and not buy a Canon Lens for the tasks described by the OP: and if I were looking at a lens which required Manual Focus and Manual TTL Metering - I would look at a FAST old Nikon or Old Pentax W/A Prime Lens.

Personally, I would not buy or use the Samyang – but I haven’t use one so I could be swayed, but I don’t think so.

WW

[Colin Southern]

That’s certainly wide: but still two stops slower than F/1.4.
It is Manual Focus and Stop Down TTL Metering.
There are several reports of ∞ focus being way beyond infinity, so that would possibly cause problems for the “Night Skies” the OP is considering using the lens to capture.

If I wanted to save money and not buy a Canon Lens for the tasks described by the OP: and if I were looking at a lens which required Manual Focus and Manual TTL Metering - I would look at a FAST old Nikon or Old Pentax W/A Prime Lens.

Personally, I would not buy or use the Samyang – but I haven’t use one so I could be swayed, but I don’t think so.

WW

Just for comparison, I have the Canon 14mm F2.8L USM II lens and am very happy with it, but it doesn't get a lot of use; my Canon 16-35mm F2.8L USM II is far more versatile and starts at almost the same FoV.

[Colin Southern]

That’s certainly wide: but still two stops slower than F/1.4.
It is Manual Focus and Stop Down TTL Metering.
There are several reports of ∞ focus being way beyond infinity, so that would possibly cause problems for the “Night Skies” the OP is considering using the lens to capture.

If I wanted to save money and not buy a Canon Lens for the tasks described by the OP: and if I were looking at a lens which required Manual Focus and Manual TTL Metering - I would look at a FAST old Nikon or Old Pentax W/A Prime Lens.

Personally, I would not buy or use the Samyang – but I haven’t use one so I could be swayed, but I don’t think so.

WW

Just for comparison, I have the Canon 14mm F2.8L USM II lens and am very happy with it, but it doesn't get a lot of use; my Canon 16-35mm F2.8L USM II is far more versatile and starts at almost the same FoV.

[William W]

Just for comparison, I have the Canon 14mm F2.8L USM II lens and am very happy with it, but it doesn't get a lot of use; my Canon 16-35mm F2.8L USM II is far more versatile and starts at almost the same FoV.

More from my point of view:

The EF 14/2.8 L MkII and the EF 16 to 35/2.8 L MkII were released around the same time, I remember because I had the EF 16 to 35 F/2.8 and was considering whether to buy the new MkII version to replace my older 16 to 35 zoom lens or buy the MkII version of the 14/2.8 (a 14mm prime lens I had been considering for several years) or buy nothing new at all.

I chose to replace my older version 16 to 35 and continue "considering" the 14mm.

In another conversation, a little while later, Colin mentioned how little use his 14/2.8 actually gets.
He, more than I, specializes in a genre of Photography that would surely utilize such a wide lens more often.

So I figured that if Colin doesn't use his 14/2.8MkII very often, then I would be better to rent one on the very odd occasions that I needed so to do.
Since that choice which I made around 2008, I have never rented one, yet.

I do have the EF 15/2.8 which I use (as a fisheye lens) and also I do de-fish it, occasionally: and for the odd times when 16mm is not wide enough, and/or it is impractical to set up multiple shots and stich in post production, a de-fished 15/2.8 works very well for me.

Colin's comments above re-confirm to me that the 14/2.8 is a very specialized lens: and one that I do not require in my lens bag.



WW