I recently purchased the 24-105mm f4L, and I like the images it takes. I have however noticed that I shoot the majority of my shots with it at 24mm, and sometimes I wish I had a bit more leeway here on the wide end. I also have the 16mm f2.8 STM, which I am quite happy with.
> The question is, should I get the 14-35mm f4L as well?I have compared the test chart pictures over at
the-digital-review.com, for all three lenses. It seems that the 14-35mm beats both the 16 and the 24-105 - at 16, 24 and 28mm. The 24-105 seems better at 35mm.
> Pro's:+ Smaller and lighter than the 24-105, so could be more comfortable to carry on camera
+ Seems sharper than the 24-105 all the way up to about 30mm
+ Extra 12.5% of reach at the wide end (2mm) vs the 16mm
+ If I'm in a location where I know I won't need more than 35mm, I could use just one lens and not have to switch between the 16 and the 24-105
> Con's:- Expensive
Now, what is your opinion on the rendering of the 14-35? Is it just as good or better than the 24-105? I mean in terms of colors, "pop" etc.
The 24-105 was already a significant purchase for me. It's the first L-lens I've ever bought. And by far the most expensive. The 14-35 is going to be even more expensive. Perhaps I should take more photos with the 24-105 before I put more money into more stuff. I got the 24-105 to cut down on the amount of lenses I had to carry around. My wish was that I could take that lens only and be fine in 99% of the cases. But now I'm thinking that purpose could be even better served by the 14-35.
