Fixed vs zoom lens

[gingermegs]

A couple of ques ... I'm after a landscape lens for my canon 5DMkII ... I was hanging out for the 14mm but we're going on hols Dec (desert direction) & I'm getting impatient so was looking at the 16-35mm.
There's probably heaps of forums on fixed vs zoom does anyone have opinions between the two ... ignoring the price issue for now!
What are the issues when attaching filters as far as vignetting is concerned. Currently I'm using the 24-104mm & it suffers at 24 when I attach polariser & ND ... (hummm does PSCS5 content aware remove my nasty black corners for me!!!)

Thanks

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day gingermeggs

Many answers here to your multiple Qs ...
1- while a 14mm would be delightful - superwide & great fun to have/use - the cost comes down to production quantities, and the more lenses made, the cheaper they each become. Thus your $$ will vary as a result

2- in "lines-per-millimetre" microscopic sharpness, the fixed lens will be sharper than the zoom, and you need to balance the convenience against empirical sharpness - if you will be doing heaps of 20" x 30" [and larger] prints, the fixed lens may be needed ... if not, the zoom will win hands down

3- as to vignetting - it is very common with super-wides. You may have no choice but to use a step-up ring and go to a larger filter size
eg if the filter thread is 67mm, you may need a 67 >72 step-up ring and then a 72mm pola filter

hope this helps a bit
Regards, Phil

[gingermegs]

Thanks Ozzie does help

Very new to the in's & out's of cameras & lenses.
I'm still divided between the canon 14mm & 16-36mm. Our ultimate plan is to print our pics fairly large ones so maybe we'll go 14mm but then filters? How do you use polar & NG filters with the 14mm. I did read the it only takes gel filters ... what are they? are they polar & NG? how do you use them? or can anyone point me in the direction of some good (easy to understand) info.

Can I put filters on the 16-35mm? Are the square ones the way to go? Suggestions for a good set!

Thanks

[soulman]

If you're not absolutely sure that you want the 14mm, then you're probably better off with the 16-35 I would think. The latter is a well regarded lens and the former is a specialised and relatively limited use item. I suspect you'll get much more use out of the 16-35 and the difference in sharpness is not likely to be a limiting factor in most situations.

Gel filters fit to the back of the lens, preclude the use of a polariser and are a bit fiddly. The 16-35 takes 82mm circular filters.

[dulvariprestige]

If you're after a lens for landscapes, what about the 17-40, it's not a 2.8, but it is half the price of the 16-35, takes 77mm filters which you already have, and the money saved can go towards the 14mm.

Although after saying it will take the filters you already have, you may want to invest in slimline CP and ND filters, this could solve your vignetting problem.

[Roosta]

To your CS5 Vignetting ?, yeap, I was shooting on monday night with a 10-24 UWA, had some vignetting @ 10mm, was easily able to clean up the corners, or you can get a little fancy and add black or white framing to the picture (give it the olden days feel). Also colour balance the corners to the rest of the Pic.

[gingermegs]

Thanks guys for your comments ... some good points to ponder

[Bromeo]

Dude, have a look at either the Bower 14mm f/2.8 or the Vivitar 13mm f/2.8.

Both can be had from B&H on EF mount, both are excellent quality lenses, and both are under $500 due to being MF only lenses. The MF is the only turnoff for most, but shooting landscapes is the ideal situation for using such a lens, since focusing is much more simple and static than any other area.

Use the thousands you save to get tripods, Lee filter kit w/Big Stopper, and all the other bits you need.