I owned a Canon 14mm for about a year. During the same period I owned a Canon 20-35mm L. Both great lenses. I did a lot of train photography inside stations, etc. and my back was killing me because of the weight in my backpack. I sold both of them and bought a Canon 16-35mm L. I really felt bad selling the 14mm because it was kind of special and "exotic". However, there is not that much of a difference between 14mm and 16mm (for me at least) and they both were 2.8. I have absolutely no complaints about the image quality of the 16-35. I will be honest and admit that I have never and probably will never even consider a non-Canon lens so consider these comments somewhat biased. John Lovda Canton, OH
I own and use both the 14mm f2.8 and the zoom 16-35mm f2.8 and I back John's opinion. Though the 14mm is a little bit wider than the zoom, this one allows carrying a smaller bag. But main difference is distortion where the prime wins by far. Just if you are taking many pictures of buildings the 14 is a gem. I love extreme wides and the Canon is one of the best (others in my stable: Voigtl�nder 12mm, Nikon 15mm and Hologon 16mm). In real life using the 16-35mm is just enough. I only carry the 14mm if I drive my car. But it'll be a true pain have to sell it! Regards Felix * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
