PDA

View Full Version : 14-35mm f2, What do you use it for?


The Saint
5th March 2010, 08:54 AM
While walking home last night, contemplating the wrongs of this world, I stumbled on a problem...

What advantage does the 14-35 f2 provide over the 12-60 or the 14-54. Now I know it's super high grade and provides some of the best quality images possible and has the SWD focusing. But what I was more interested in was what opportunities does it provide that you can't achieve with the high grade offerings?

Obviously 14-35 f2 has the potential to gather more light than the high grade equivlents, but when is this useful in practical situations?

Or am I missing something else?

When Wolfgang advertised his 14-35 f2 for sale this morning, because he wasn't getting the use out of it, I thought I would pose this question to the forum.

Regards

Simon

Kiwi Paul
5th March 2010, 09:29 AM
What advantage does the 14-35 f2 provide over the 12-60 or the 14-54. Now I know it's super high grade and provides some of the best quality images possible and has the SWD focusing. But what I was more interested in was what opportunities does it provide that you can't achieve with the high grade offerings?

Obviously 14-35 f2 has the potential to gather more light than the high grade equivlents, but when is this useful in practical situations?


Well you have answered your own question, "it's super high grade and provides the best quality images possible and has the SWD focusing", "14-35 f2 has the potential to gather more light than the high grade equivalents"

That's pretty much it, it's as good as lenses get as far as IQ goes. Very low if non existent CA's, pin sharp images and very low distortion. The f2 aperture allows shallower DOF and as it's 1- 1.5 stops faster than the 12-60 and 14-54 means low light work can be achieved with 1-1.5 stop lower ISO values. The contrast rendition is excellent too.

The lens has been designed for quality and speed and the results can be exceptional.

I think it's one of these lenses you have to own to appreciate and have a desire to get the best out of it. I have no regrets selling the 12-60 and getting the 14-35. The only thing I do mull over is whether I should have kept the 14-54 as it's a small lighter lens better for casual shots when the size and weight of the 14-35 is inconvenient, but there's no denying the quality of the 14-35.

Paul

The Saint
5th March 2010, 10:06 AM
Paul

I guessed that would have been the answer, it's more about the quality of image you get with the 14-35 f2 rather than opening up further opportunities.

The main use I could see for the 14-35 f2 with my current usage would be for landscapes and the like, where having the shallower DOF is not normally a requirement and if the light isn't that wonderful I can always break out the tripod. I accept that the images would be better, but to be honest my 14-54 more than meets my current requirement on that front.

The reason I was pondering the question, is I have been seriously considering getting the 35-100 f2, as I can see that it would have numerous advantages over my current 14-54 and 50-200 kit, for sports events, social occassions where the zoom range appears to be well suited, the shallower DOF would be an asset for portraiture and its more suited to low light conditions. The only 2 downsides I can see with the 35-100, is the cost (but I can justify that) and the size/weight.

Before I took the plunge on the 35-100 I wanted to make sure that I hadn't overloked something that would make the 14-35 more suitable for my needs (it's unlikely that I'll be able to get another SHQ lense in the foreseeable future).

Regards

Simon

ndl0071
5th March 2010, 10:09 AM
I've got my eye on the 14-35 as I do a lot of low light long exposure stuff which I can see the f2 and possibly the extra pic quality over the the 14-54 coming in handy for, the only thing holding me back is the cost:eek::eek:

snaarman
5th March 2010, 10:13 AM
I can imagine this would be a difficult decision. My semi-pro lenses feel so much nicer than the kit lenses. The results are that bit better too. I can only imagine how the real pro lenses feel..

I could never justify the expense and I would struggle with the size and the weight on a day to day basis, but oh, the image quality..

Just check out Paul's on line gallery. There are some really good shots there. So - the choice is yours, but owning top pro lenses is clearly no disadvantage when it comes to making great images :)

Pete

Ian
5th March 2010, 11:05 AM
Our one and only 14-35 is currently out on hire - in Belgium - for two weeks and I'm missing it already!

It's a superb lens for in-doors where you don't necessarily want to use flash. This lens can produce an almost three dimensional quality and it's very sharp even wide open, although you need to be very accurate with focusing as the depth of field is not great at full aperture.

The SWD focus can be temperamental; it's sometimes very dependable and then it can start to hunt. That's the one issue, but you learn to live with it.

Ian

Graham_of_Rainham
5th March 2010, 01:34 PM
<snip>
The SWD focus can be temperamental; it's sometimes very dependable and then it can start to hunt. That's the one issue, but you learn to live with it.

Ian

Is that the same on all bodies *???

Ian
5th March 2010, 01:58 PM
Is that the same on all bodies *???

Maybe less so with older bodies. It's not a probem at all in good light.

I've mainly used it on the E-3 and E-30.

Ian

Kiwi Paul
5th March 2010, 02:09 PM
Paul
The reason I was pondering the question, is I have been seriously considering getting the 35-100 f2, as I can see that it would have numerous advantages over my current 14-54 and 50-200 kit, for sports events, social occassions where the zoom range appears to be well suited, the shallower DOF would be an asset for portraiture and its more suited to low light conditions. The only 2 downsides I can see with the 35-100, is the cost (but I can justify that) and the size/weight.

Before I took the plunge on the 35-100 I wanted to make sure that I hadn't overlooked something that would make the 14-35 more suitable for my needs (it's unlikely that I'll be able to get another SHQ lense in the foreseeable future).

Regards

Simon

The quality of the 35-100 is outstanding, the detail,and resolution really are superb even more so than the excellent 50-200. It doesn't have SWD but still focusses very fast and very accurately, in some cases just as fast as the 50-200 SWD as I found it just goes straight to the focus point and is ready immediately, the SWD lenses may whip round faster but sometimes they micro correct after arriving at the focus point.
The 35-100 works well with either teleconverter making it 49-140mm f2.8 with the EC-14 or 70-200 f4 with the EC-20 and still retains very good IQ.

It is large, even bigger than the 50-200 and heavier too but I use it hand held with no problems.

I would recommend it.

And of course the most important thing is it's a very nice looking lens, impresses all the girls lol.

Paul

Wreckdiver
5th March 2010, 07:00 PM
Some sample photos taken this afternoon of the Wiltshire & Berkshire canal at Pewsham, Chippenham. Taken with E-30 and 14-35mm f/2.0 lens. The photos are as they came off the camera as RAW, just resized.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/866/P3050708.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/21807)
1.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/866/P3050711.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/21808)
2.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/866/P3050719.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/21810)
3.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/866/P3050714.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/21809)
4.

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/866/P3050747.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/21811)
5.

Steve

Nick Temple-Fry
5th March 2010, 07:30 PM
Some sample photos taken this afternoon of the Wiltshire & Berkshire canal at Pewsham, Chippenham.
Steve

Nice shots - any water voles there - I've never walked that stretch.

Nick

Wreckdiver
5th March 2010, 07:48 PM
Nice shots - any water voles there - I've never walked that stretch.

Nick

I am sure that there would be some around, right habitat though I'm no expert. Never saw any. There are only a few parts of the canal where there is any water, it still requires a lot of work in restoration. It was a lovely walk this afternoon, beautiful weather and blue skies.

Steve

The Saint
6th March 2010, 08:56 AM
Thanks for the images...

You just trying to make me jealous that I was stuck in the office yesterday and I have woken up this morning to grey skies!

ndl0071
6th March 2010, 10:16 AM
Thanks for the images...

You just trying to make me jealous that I was stuck in the office yesterday and I have woken up this morning to grey skies!

Should have gone to Bognor then:D

oly_om
6th March 2010, 09:08 PM
I have had the 14-54 (I think probably a rather soft copy) and the 12-60. So far as AF goes in good light, the 12-60 seemed to be a bit snappier than the 14-35 (but with such small DOF, you can imagine the tolerances for the AF are smaller and hence the algorithm in the lens may be deliberately more ponderous to ensure accuracy). In low light, the AF performance of the 14-35 seems better, probably by virtue of a lot more light getting to the AF sensors.

I also had the PanaLeica 25/1.4. This is a truly fantastic lens, but one I didn't use as much as I would have liked to. It was a bit too short - a 35/1.4 would have been ideal.

So, I sold the 25/1.4 and the 12-60 and got the 14-35 (pretty much a no-cost transaction). This gave me the shallow DOF of the 25 (@35mm, f2 is about the same as the DOF of 25mm @f1.4), good(not as good as the 25) low-light capability and more practicality than the 25 (being a zoom). The bokeh is better than the 12-60 too. Given I also have the 9-18, the loss of the 12-14 wasn't a big deal.

The 14-35 is not as sharp as the 25/1.4, but it's pretty close. I'm sure it is better than 90% of short primes of competitors wide open. It is certainly sharper than the 12-60 (which is already very good). What is more amazing is that you can overcome the lack of range by adding the EC-14 or EC-20 without suffering any noticeable IQ degradation.

In summary, it's really good because you can use it in low light and get the shallow DOF and it's still practical enough to have on the camera all the time. If money was no object, I would have kept the 25/1.4 too...

Andy

Kiwi Paul
6th March 2010, 11:00 PM
In low light, the AF performance of the 14-35 seems better, probably by virtue of a lot more light getting to the AF sensors.
Andy

My 14-35 also seems to work fine in low light but recently on the American 4/3 site there was a huge discussion about this with most of them very dissatisfied with the "appalling" low light focus capabilities of the 14-35, there were a couple maybe 3 of us who didn't seem to have any issues but there were folk being put of getting the lens and others wishing they had never bought one because of this so don't know if we are just lucky and have good copies or our technique is better or a combination.

Paul

oly_om
6th March 2010, 11:17 PM
My 14-35 also seems to work fine in low light but recently on the American 4/3 site there was a huge discussion about this with most of them very dissatisfied with the "appalling" low light focus capabilities of the 14-35, there were a couple maybe 3 of us who didn't seem to have any issues but there were folk being put of getting the lens and others wishing they had never bought one because of this so don't know if we are just lucky and have good copies or our technique is better or a combination.

Paul


...or we don't expect it to work in total darkness!