I love this lens on 5D.

http://picasaweb.google.com/cuonghuutran/LeHuyStudio/photo#s5227352027411285778

http://picasaweb.google.com/cuonghuutran/LeHuyStudio/photo#s5227403192452392930

http://picasaweb.google.com/cuonghuutran/LeHuyStudio/photo#s5227371390503940994

lebrillo95 wrote:
Anon Moss, I would be very curious to hear if you actually received the custom FKD100/98 since it's been about a month and if so how convenient it's operation is. How difficult is to stop the holes and aesthetically what is the appearance of the lens with all of the Lee accessories attached? Also, have you been using the circular polarizer and if so is it difficult to rotate the entire holder with multiple filters in it?
Thanks.

My G-EOS 14-24 setup is currently on loan to a fellow FMer in Sedona.
I will probably be trying the LEE filter holder when it returns.
If I do, I will post pics and a summary of my experience with it.

John at LEE filters says that the LEE adapter and filters should work fine at most settings with the 14-24G (see above in this thread)...but FMer 'Andrew Gough' wrote this in another recent thread:
"I have the slip on lee adapter, and I shimmed it for a snug fit. The problem is that the filter holders vignette in the image. I am not even sure that the filter is wide enough - looking for some blue tack to see. I'll let you know."

At this point in time after reading conflicting reports, I'm hoping that someone who has tested the LEE gear on a 14-24G will post a thorough review of their experience.
I am going to e-mail Andrew right now to see if he can add some more detailed info about his experience to this thread.
I'm also going to e-mail John at LEE again. I would like to get assurance that if LEE's gear for this lens doesn't work...that a refund would be available.
Cheers
Scott

No fair! If you guys get to use the 14-24mm on your Canons - I should get to use the 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 on my Nikons...

I look at some of the review on this lens and discovered that there has no filter canbe added to protect this lens. Is it a big trouble for you? Does this lens even have a lens cap to protect it?

Derek - well then

HapZungLam - Yes, a lens cap is provided and no way I would carry that lens around without the lens cap. On the other hand, I never used any protective filter on any of my lenses. So, this is a non-issue for me.

derekdanois wrote:
AGeoJO, thanks for the clarification on hubsand. In addition to my 1DsM3, I also have a D3 that I use the 14-24 on...fantastic performance. My issue is that there are no Canon lenses that meet that performance and I really need a solid wide angle performer on the 1DsM3. In any event, just want to get what I paid for.

I know it goes against prevailing wisdom on this forum, but I'd recommend that you consider trying the 16-35mm Mark II with DXO Optics Pro as a substitute for the 14-24. I have been using DXO Optics Pro for about a year now, and get fantastic results. It only works for supported lenses. I use it a lot with my Canon 17-40mm and 24-105mm (and other lenses) on my Canon 5D. I've also used it with a 16-35mm Mark I on a 1DsII. DXO Optics Pro achieves levels of sharpness (without artifacts) and microcontrast that I cannot achieve in any other way (or at least not without A LOT of work) and I am a very experienced and advanced photoshop user. My settings for DXO Optics Pro, if you care to download it and try it, are lens softness at "0" (this is the most important feature, IMHO; it restores lens sharpness and micro contrast to a standard measurement, based on detailed lens and body-specific tests), chromatic aberration at default, and I use DXO lighting a medium (this is great for macro contrast and preserving highlight and shadow detail). I also often prefer the color I get from using "neutral" as opposed to the "in camera" color. I have been truly amazed at the results including those I've obtained from a 1DsII and 16-35mm Mark I.

Ok gents...
now does anyone have any images to contribute to this thread?
The OP asked for "pics from 14-24mm on EOS bodies".
Can we stay on topic please?

BTW:
Here's a teaser from our fellow FMer in Sedona who is borrowing my G-EOS 14-24
and testing it on his 1DsIII (he currently owns Canon's 16-35mkII):

"Just wanted to let you know how I’m doing down here. So far, I’ve only had one opportunity to get out and shoot with the lens. I really liked the results; it’s painfully obvious how much sharper this lens is over the entire frame. Stopped down no real advantage center frame but as you move to the edges and corners it just outshines everything Canon has to offer by a mile...I plan to get out this week and do some final testing and get some images that I’m really proud of that can be used in the write-up"

Hi All,
I started a new topic with a response. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/672538 I will post some images next week, they are amazing!
Dennis

Rob Galbraith just updated his Canon 1DIII/1DsIII autofocus report,
and he included a shot of an indoor basketball arena taken with a Canon 1DsIII
and a Nikkor 14-24G using Mark's adapter (he included a link to Mark's website).
When you click on the image a pop-up appears with two crops of people on the arena floor.
Here's the link:
[url=http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537]http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537

Woow, the 21MP sensor really brings out the resolution of the lens!

Can't wait for a higher pixel 5D replacement. Not only the pixel count but also the dust removal feature. My images are full of dust spots when I stop down the lens and have to waste time cleaning up.


5D + 1424 fully stopped down:

Hand held 14-24. 14mm f8 1DsMKIII

Waiting for the adaptor, I could test my 14-24-copy with a D-3:

And wow - it's corners are really amazing; two weeks ago, I tested a 16-35-II, the difference between them is very obvious, even I didn't tested scientifically.

Here's the 14-24 full image, a converted RAW at 14 mm:







and here the extreme upper left corner; 100 % in PS, some CA is visible; but it appears in the corner's only, so no CA in the highcontrasted center. Is it normal? Interesting, that the in-camerajpgs didn't showed CA at all. Once again, the 16-35 II was on CA much worse, too.

I'm still testing the 14-24 as you can see on the church images. Focus at f2.8 can be a little touchy. It's amazing how fast we get used to auto focus lenses and forget how to precisely focus manually. I used live view extensively on a recent shoot, which makes this lens incredibly sharp. Overall the 14-24 has the ability to give clients the first look, wow factor usual only obtainable with Zeiss or Leica lenses. This shot was at 14mm f8.

montespluga wrote:



and here the extreme upper left corner; 100 % in PS, some CA is visible; but it appears in the corner's only, so no CA in the highcontrasted center. Is it normal? Interesting, that the in-camerajpgs didn't showed CA at all. Once again, the 16-35 II was on CA much worse, too.



If you're shooting with a D3, and not processing in CaptureNX, you will see the results of the CA removal in the JPEG's but not in the RAW's as you need to use CaptureNX to enable the D3's (and D700/D300's) CA removal automation.

But then again, no-one posting in this thread is using a Nikon camera . . .

I'm shooting a 1DsMklll . There is very little Red CA in the corners that lightroom takes out no problem. I don't see any in the center at all. The below images show with the CA and with -12R CA in lightroom.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm unable to restrain myself from injecting a remark:
That lens is utterly astonishing! I've only been seriously into digital photography for a couple years and haven't got a base of experience that includes the legendary German lenses, but the detail in even the corners just staggers me. Is the reason no one else has posted a comment about this, that it's nothing worthy of particular note?
What a great opportunity here: I'll get to learn in any case...

Ernie Aubert wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm unable to restrain myself from injecting a remark:
That lens is utterly astonishing! I've only been seriously into digital photography for a couple years and haven't got a base of experience that includes the legendary German lenses, but the detail in even the corners just staggers me. Is the reason no one else has posted a comment about this, that it's nothing worthy of particular note?

It's all right . . . since all my pro-Nikon posts on the subject have been deleted, I'm compelled to point out that the 14-24G is nowhere near as good as it's made out to be. Don't believe all these hyped-up images.

You should buy a proper Canon lens. The 14mm L II has much less distortion than the Nikon zoom, and it AUTOfocuses. You won't miss any shots mucking about stopping down. The L prime makes quite sharp prints at modest sizes.

At 16-24mm, you should try the Mark II 16-35mm which is also quite sharp and has astounding flare resistance. My images look great on screen at 50%. Quit worrying about corner resolution and just, you know, get out there and take pictures . . .

I agree with this and will be selling my 14-24 so I can get back my 16-35 Canon, I really miss those soft edges and not so tack sharp images. We as photographers should accept the manufacturers claims and never try to produce a product that is better. Lets hear it for the mediocre image!

Can anyone post a 24mm sample?

I've got an idea how it performs on the wide end, but am wondering if there are any peculiarities at the long end. All I spotted were a couple of 22mm sots earlier in the thread.

The lens is best at the very wide 14-16mm range. At 24mm it is still a good performer, especially wide open, but I prefer the look of my (exceptional copy) Tamron 24/2.5 stopped down. I find myself using the lens in the 14-20mm range, where it provides a very dramatic effect:

These 3 are 14-24 at 24mm F2.8 with 100% Crops

Edited by dennishh on Aug 17, 2008 at 08:44 PM GMT

These 3 are 14-24@ 24mm f8 with crops. This is still a pretty amazing lens.
Dennis

Edited by dennishh on Aug 17, 2008 at 08:44 PM GMT

How about some updated information on the Adapters - my 14-24 is gathering alot of dust

It's a sad state, I feel for you. No use in asking because you'll get the standard "checks in the mail" response. Spend less than $1000 and get a Kodak SLR/n. It is a FF, 14mp, no AA filter camera that really shines with this lens. You can also enjoy the full compliments of the lens (AF, auto aperture,...). My samples above were done with this combo.

Gregman wrote:
How about some updated information on the Adapters - my 14-24 is gathering alot of dust