|
|
edwardzeltser
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, amazingly sharp from f3.2 on 5D
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit pricey
|
|
Sharp, fast, excellent build quality.
Noticeable edge distortion (what would you expect from this focal length?)
To see some samples on 5D please go to http://edzeltserphoto.com , Clients, Lenses, Canon 14mm
|
|
 Jul 22, 2008
|
|
lextalionis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 853
|
|
Review Date: Mar 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,000.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great rectilinear wide angle and fun to use.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bulbous front element, prone to flare, rear element very exposed and high cost.
|
|
Honestly $2000 is hard to justify on this lens. Don't get me wrong, it a very nice lens and IQ is definitely very good among its class.
Here are some sample shots taken with a 5D (take note to some comparison shots between the MkII version and this lens, interesting finds with flare and soft edges):
Sample Photos
-Roy
|
|
|
Mar 12, 2008
|
|
neridah
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jul 17, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 923
|
|
Review Date: Mar 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp-image quality-Build
|
|
Cons:
|
Nil
|
|
Outstanding lens despite the Version II release this still packs serious punch....
|
|
|
Mar 7, 2008
|
|
S Zozgornik
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Well build, low distorsion, quite sharp even at 2.8,
|
|
Cons:
|
strongest CA I have ever seen, very soft in the edges, flare!
|
|
It is not as bad as often told, but it´s far from excellent...
Better as most of the other 14mm Lenses, but it can´t compare with the new one.
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2007
|
|
pascal03
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 21, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3831
|
|
Review Date: Sep 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent build quality, optically very good, quick AF (although not necessary), rectilinear lens works very well on full frame or crop body. Widest rectilinear prime lens available for a full frame Canon EF Mount
|
|
Cons:
|
Can get a bit pricey, front element is exposed as are most such lenses. No ability to use filters (again, common to such lenses)
|
|
I was skeptical before I purchased this lens. In addition to the extreme cost, almost all reviews on just about every forum/article indicated that this lens was lacking optically. I decided to go ahead and buy this lens anyway as my other options were the Sigma 14mm f2.8 or the Tamron 14mm f2.8 or the Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6. I have owned the Sigma 14mm f2.8 as well as the Sigma 12-24mm. The Sigma lenses are not in the same league as the Canon 14L – they simply are worlds apart.
Contrast is very good and the colors are wonderful. Distortions are well controlled. For indoor shots or for a really wide angle perspective, this is the only lens I would pick.
If you use or have used a 16-35mm or 17-35mm, the extra 2-3mm does add to the wide angle perspective significantly. The 14L is/was sharper than the Canon 16-35L Mk 1 at 16mm and has less distortion while providing the extra perspective.
The lens is sharp at the center/mid-corners wide open at f2.8. However, as most might agree, one seldom shoots extreme wide angle at a large aperture. For depth of field, I use this lens mostly at f5.6-f11.0. This lens hits it’s sweetspot - sharp in the corners as well as at the center at f5.6 - f8.0.
The Sigma 12-24mm has very good distortion control. The converted Zeiss 17-35mm has the best overall image quality. The 14L has a little bit of both and some qualities of it’s own that make it an essential part of any WA kit. Try it out and you will be addicted 
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2007
|
|
Duncan Butcher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Ultra sharp through all apertures. Minimal distortion on the corners unlike the 16-35L Mk i.Amazing rendition of colours, especially blues.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very expensive. A real niche lens, always seems to be on the camera when you need reach :)
|
|
A super super sharp prime. A real niche though because of the ultra (ULTRA!) wide qualities. An unreal interior lens, especially if you love wide interior shots. Renders colours beautifully, especially blues and reds and oranges.Has none of the distortion, well minimal distortion, unlike the 16-35L Mk i in the corners.
Price is ridiculous for it though.Money better probably spent on a 16-35L Mk ii unless you are a UWA freak like me.
|
|
|
May 29, 2007
|
|
Ludo Monchat
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 28, 2007
Location: France
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: May 4, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Really wide, very small and light, acceptable distorsion, fast focusing, f2,8
|
|
Cons:
|
Way too expensive, really soft corners even stopped, CA, and a huge amount of flare and ghosting.
|
|
Linear Ultra Wide Angle Zoom, the 14L is the easiest way to go on FF and to play with the image. This lens is fun, really fun to use and some shots can be quite good but beware of the CA, of the corners if you plan to use them and *beware* of the flare and ghosting. Each and every light creates reflexions of different colors and because of the front protruding element, it's impossible to get rid of them. All in all an average lens that I sold after 9 months when I bought a Leitz Super-Elmar 15mm f3,5 slower but night and day better.
|
|
|
May 4, 2007
|
|
manoel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Mar 17, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
good lens for FF
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2007
|
|
manoel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2007
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Mar 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, focus, contrast...good for 5D, excelent at f5,6-f11
|
|
Cons:
|
no good at f2,8
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2007
|
|
perbo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 30, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fast, sharp, sharp, sharp, sharp.. (from f2.8!)
|
|
Cons:
|
price a little bit too high
|
|
I also own the 300 F4 L non-IS, the 100 2.8 macro USM, the 50 1.8 mk2, a very good copy of the 17-85 IS, and the zenitar 16 mm fisheye.
The 14mm is the sharpest of all, even wide open.
It is sharper than the medium format carl zeiss biometar 80mm 2.8 MC (with adapter of course) stopped down
On my 20D is a 22mm, wonderful for panoramas, indoor, low-light handheld shooting. I've tried it on a film EOS and the 114° FOV is amazing..
too bad for the price, but it is "the" L series wide angle lens after all
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2005
|
|
normski
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 414
|
|
Review Date: Sep 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
well made, well corrected, low barrelling
|
|
Cons:
|
cost, sample variations
|
|
can't complain apart from price. my first copy was a dog (how many are out there?). never really sharp at any aperture and went really soft in the centre of the image from f8 - f16 while the surrounding stayed relatively ok. came back from canon repair exactly the same - unuseable. second copy - amazing - sharp at f2.8 and all the other stops to f16. talk about a night and day difference. BUT this should not be the case for a low volume high end lens. my conclusion is that canon qc leaves something to be desired. however based on my second copy of this lens i can recommend it.
|
|
|
Sep 4, 2005
|
|
Offline
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Any Canon L lens is sturdy and well built compare to the non L
|
|
Cons:
|
Too much flares is the weekest link for such a superwide angle lens. The Chromatic Aberration (CA) can be fixed but not the edge softness of this lens. The contrast and saturation is not as strong as the Carl Zeiss optics.
|
|
|
|
|
May 14, 2005
|
|
|
