, to buy or not to buy, that is the question. I am updating my lens collection and this is the next on the list. I own a Tamron 14mm f2.8, and really like this focal length. The Canon 14mmLmkII gets good reviews, but I would like to see photos on what this lens can really do before I plop $2k on it. I really would appreciate your help.

for that kinda money i would get the nikon 14-24, thats what ive done..

s

tama,

I bought the tamy 14mm recently from a man who had just purchased the Canon 14. He provided me with PMs with comp shoot from both. I can try forwarding them to you if that would be helpful. I'm not quite sure how to do that, but there must be a way.

Robert

using what adapter?

parsons wrote:
for that kinda money i would get the nikon 14-24, thats what ive done..

s

http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/

i have both the nikon 14-24 and the canon 14mm 2.8 II. i took a couple of comparison shots at a wedding this weekend.

I also used the 14mm II for various shots as i wanted to have fast autofocus.....i can post these if you like.

i have the older adapter for 16:9 where you rotate the lens, it also has the af chip.

Please post any wedding images that have for the Canon 14mmL. If you are able to the Nikon 14-24 as a comparison

Joel F

So how would you rate the Nikon and 14L II? Can we see your comparison shots?

big country wrote:
i have both the nikon 14-24 and the canon 14mm 2.8 II. i took a couple of comparison shots at a wedding this weekend.

I also used the 14mm II for various shots as i wanted to have fast autofocus.....i can post these if you like.

i have the older adapter for 16:9 where you rotate the lens, it also has the af chip.

FWIW, faced with a similar choice, I took a slightly different route. I was a little underwhelmed by the Tamron, didn't want a zoom at that width & felt the EF 14L Mk II was simply too expensive to justify (based on the use it would get). So, I ultimately went for the EF 14 L Mk. I - at well under half the price of the Mk II. It has received some mediocre reviews & I was a little hesitant to try it but I have been very pleasantly surprised with the results I've been getting. I know this is not a popular lens here but I think it's received an (unwarranted) excessively bad rap - I suspect from many who are simply passing on "received wisdom" as opposed to actual experience with the lens. Of course, this is my experience - YMMV!

i really dont know which one i'll end up keeping. yes, the nikon is better overall, and the zoom makes it more usefull, but the canon is a canon and if you need a fast shot, you dont have to deal w/ guessing shutter speed,apeture, etc....

here are shots, both straight from camera, camera was set at SRAW in neutral picture style:

nikon 14-24:

http://holzphoto.smugmug.com/photos/576261519_dCxte-O.jpg

canon 14 II:

http://holzphoto.smugmug.com/photos/576261244_tiohy-O.jpg

as you can see, very close, but the nikon is def. better.

big country wrote:
as you can see, very close, but the nikon is def. better.

For sharpness and contrast, certainly, but the Canon is far better for distortion and vignetting. With a 14mm lens, distortion and vignetting are quite important factors, since shots very often involve large spaces and straight lines, as your example here illustrates. On the strength of these shots that you have kindly shared, I'm not sure I wouldn't take the relatively small and light AF 14mm for use on Canon. The picture looks a lot better until you start peeping, and even then it's not an enormous difference. And presumably this is without DPP lens aberration correction. It's a hard decision.

14 is wayy too wide angle for me. it looks like a fisheye. however, if i needed a 14mm lens i'd go for the nikon 14-24. cheaper brand new (incl. cost of adaptor) than the stupid rip off from canon. can zoom too. AF isn't crucial at 14mm.

the 14mm II is nothing like a fisheye. the 16-35 on the wide end has more fishyness to it than the 14mm II.

The 14L2 is superbly rectilinear for a lens that wide. It's kind of an anti-fisheye.

I agree that it's overpriced. But Canon will probably sell them to people making movies with 5D2. You can't so easily turn the camera to portrait when shooting video, and the frame is more letterboxed too, so you end up using significantly wider lenses for video than for stills.

big country wrote:
the 14mm II is nothing like a fisheye. the 16-35 on the wide end has more fishyness to it than the 14mm II.



+1

here's one hand held, very nice lens for night shooting without tripod. this one with 30D it perform even better on 5DmarkII. I have better images than this one, but lazy to upload lol.

1/25s f/3.5 at 14.0mm iso400

brainiac wrote:
big country wrote:
as you can see, very close, but the nikon is def. better.

Canon is far better for distortion and vignetting. With a 14mm lens, distortion and vignetting are quite important factors,

i took some pictures with the lens ona friends D3 as my adapter hasnt come yet,

at 14mm shooting houses in the street the verticals, well where vertical and nothing looked outa shape compared to my sigma as the same focal length.

image unsharpend or edited, ok sot the lampost has very slight lean but nothing major in my eye

That's not the kind of shot that will show the problem. A fairly common type of shot with a 14mm lens is one where there are multiple straight lines which are either parallel or converge. When shooting buildings or interiors curvature can be a nuisance. The lamp post here illustrates that shooting this lens on Canon will often require lens correction for this kind of shot. Whether it matters to you depends on what kind of photography you do, but many architectural and interior photographers are very fussy about this issue, understandably.

big country wrote:
i really dont know which one i'll end up keeping. yes, the nikon is better overall, and the zoom makes it more usefull, but the canon is a canon and if you need a fast shot, you dont have to deal w/ guessing shutter speed,apeture, etc....

here are shots, both straight from camera, camera was set at SRAW in neutral picture style:

nikon 14-24:

http://holzphoto.smugmug.com/photos/576261519_dCxte-O.jpg

canon 14 II:

http://holzphoto.smugmug.com/photos/576261244_tiohy-O.jpg

as you can see, very close, but the nikon is def. better.



Thanks for sharing - they are very close. I think the Nikon has a slight edge in sharpness in this comparison, at least in the corners. Hard to tell since I'm on a computer other than my own. Different monitor, different settings.

EDIT - What aperture did you use on those shots?

mohamed alfari wrote:

here's one hand held, very nice lens for night shooting without tripod. this one with 30D it perform even better on 5DmarkII. I have better images than this one, but lazy to upload lol.

1/25s f/3.5 at 14.0mm iso400



I like that image, Mohamed.....it also shows a good lens pedigree.
If we were on a photo sharing/critique forum, I would have liked to discuss the cropping options for that shot with you, but we are obviously not.

what strikes me is the difference in the every-day reality of life that simon & mohamed experience - which at one level is completely irrelevant here, but at another level illustrates the power of the medium we all love.
thanks for sharing guys.

I love my 14mm mkII, use it for work mostly, here's a fun on though....

This is what I use it for mostly

Nice ceiling David, is that your camera bag in lower right corner?

Instead of using an adapter with the 14-24mm why don't u consider a 17mm TSE?

I'm going to buy this lens. I played around with my friends Nikon 14-24. Nice lens, but not sure where the fuss is, it's nothing mindblowing. Also feels like there's a plant bulb growing from the lens mount...a bit awkward. The 14L II from the test shots above looks to have a bit more CA in the corners, but other than that it's kind of like splitting hairs.

I'm a pixel peeper, but in this situation I think the awkwardness associated with adapting the lens for Canon mount does not outweigh the minor added IQ benefit of the Nikon lens (CA control but not vignetting nor distortion), especially for me because I need to be able to just mount a lens and shoot and not mess around

It is a shame that the Canon lens is quite pricey, but what's new?