 |
|
|
Rob Webster
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 1, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent lens giving very sharp results. Center sharpnes is superb with
only marginal fall off at extreme edges. Heh, this is a 14mm lens!
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive. Front element sticks out like a sore thumb.
|
|
|
A friend owned this lens before me and it was used on his 1DsIII. He had to sell both this lens and the 14mm II owing to
private circumstances. I was offered the 14mm II and bought it from him. I've never regretted my purchase and use this lens more than any other.
|
|
 Mar 22, 2009
|
|
rolfy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: Portugal
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Mar 15, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp, great colours, good correction of distortion
|
|
Cons:
|
price
|
|
|
Very expensive but you get the quality you have paied for!
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2009
|
|
nazdravanul
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 2, 2008
Location: Romania
Posts: 169
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Color, overall sharpness, resolution, distortion control, weight, size
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, some CA
|
|
This lens is amazing, for anything from landscapes to tight spaces and unusual perspectives.
No Canon zoom can compete with it in terms of color, resolution, sharpness and distortion control (I owned/ used extensively all recent Canon UWA zooms from EF-S 10-22 to EF 16-35 mk2).
It cured my Nikon 14-24 lust as distortion is a lot better corrected, color is better and the images it produces still have an overall wow factor that, for me, the Nikon is still missing. The Nikon is probably slightly sharper in the edges, but the prime is no slouch either  . And it is so much more portable than the zoom as it is both lighter and smaller. But of course, you will need a 24 1.4 mk2 prime to complete your wide angle package as, even though surprisingly versatile, the 14 prime can be way too wide, many times.
Anyway, I love this lens . And I don't even regret the high price I had to pay for it .
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2009
|
|
Chris Bennett
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 30, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Dec 18, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent sharpness, even at maximum aperture. Great peripheral illumination, contrast and very good flare resistance. Almost no rectilinear distortion. Very high build quality. Much cheaper than its predecessor.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some CA, though pretty tightly controlled.
|
|
I have not being using Canon wide angle lenses much in the past few years, particularly for critical work like architecture where the detail extends to the edge of the frame. Canon (and Nikon for that matter) have not been able to make a critically sharp wide angle lens for the 35mm format. I have used Carl Zeiss Distagons for this. There are Leica lenses which are also suitable but they are more expensive. (The Zeiss lenses aren't cheap either but, together with the superb Canon sensors, they are [arguably] able to take on the job of a very expensive medium format setup).
In my opinion, the EF14mm f/2.8L is the first Canon wide angle lens which truly does justice to its remarkable full frame sensors. This is a superb wide angle lens by any standards but when you consider that it is their widest rectilinear design, and therefore the hardest to re-design, it gives you faith that Canon has taken up the wide angle challenge seriously. Next will be the 24mm f/1.4L II, I hope
The new 14mm is beyond comparison with the old one. It is much sharper, especially at the wider apertures. It has less vignetting, more controlled chromatic aberration, higher contrast and costs much less. The current L series ultra-wide zooms are arguably better optically than the old 14mm whilst being more versatile. Not so with the new design. It has excellent sharpness, even at maximum aperture. the peripheral illumination, contrast and flare resistance are vastly improved. Unless you are very close to your subject, there is almost no rectilinear distortion.
This is a workhorse lens for me in my architectural and landscape photography assignments. I would highly recommend it to any photographer needing this extreme angle of view. You can get pretty creative with such a perspective too.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2008
|
|
Peter Kirk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 303
|
|
Review Date: Nov 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, Sharp, Great Color, Good control of flare
|
|
Cons:
|
It cost me an arm and half a leg
|
|
|
Lovely optics, much better than its predecessor.
The overall color rendition and contrast are beautiful to say the least.
At 2.8 its very very good, by 5.6 it is Amazing. Up to f16 the lens performs brilliantly. F22 visual signs of image degradation as far as softening is concerned is apparent...not usually an aperture I shoot anyway. This lens cost a bit, but I believe it is the best wide angle Canon make.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2008
|
|
Peter Kotsa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 1, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 265
|
|
Review Date: Nov 27, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,449.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, looks and feels superb, sharp from 2.8 up.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost..ouch
|
|
|
I guess you get what you pay for.
This is one of those lenses. I have not had any experience with the first version of this lens, but I can confidently say that this particular version is a wonderful piece of glass to shoot with.
Firstly focussing is something you need to get right when using such a wide lens.
It is crisp from 2.8 up. Edges are surprisingly very sharp, (I say this because I have heard that Canon cannot make a good wide angle lens, well thats not true with this lens).
I have used the Nikon 14-24 on a D3 and although I found the lens to be very sharp, possibly a tad sharper than the Canon, I also found it boring. Nothing intended against Nikon, i just think that the 14-24 lacks character. Thats where the 14mm 2.8L II stands its ground. It reminds me of my old Zeiss 16mm Hologon. It has a similar feel to the images it produces. Distortions are almost non existent on this lens.
I was expecting big rounded horizons and walls that look like they are bulging, but NO.
In fact almost perfect straight lines edge to edge. WOW, this lens is better in sharpness and distortion than the 16-35 2.8L II.
If sharpness alone is your thing, get a 14-24 Nikon, it is amazing and a freak lens.
If you want a sexy looking lens that produces images that say WOW statements, then the 14mm2.8LII is definitely the go.
Extremely happy with this purchase.
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2008
|
|
Rajan Parrikar
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Sep 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 950
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,020.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Ultra-wide focal length, outstanding optical performance, superb build.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some chromatic aberration (but easily fixed in PP), price premium.
|
|
|
In the area of ultra-wide angle lenses, Canon is yet to catch up with its rival Nikon. Only one design in Canon's line-up stacks up against Nikon's remarkable 14-24 mm zoom at the widest end: Canon's 14 mm f/2.8 L prime. The frisson of looking through the viewfinder of a full-frame 5D mated to 14 mm is an experience in itself. This is a magnificent lens optically. But wielding it effectively demands care and experience. The corner-to-corner sharpness is excellent even wide open. There is CA to contend with in contrasty situations but it is easily fixed in post-processing. Ultra-wide angle lens design is a challenge and it is reflected in the price. Until Canon matches Nikon's 14-24 zoom with one of its own, this 14 mm prime will remain the best ultra-wide option in Canon's repertoire.
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2008
|
|
MaciekP
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2007
Location: Poland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 12, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good color, very sharp, quite well corrected distortions, transparent and clear image. Good partner for 85L and 35L. The same image quality, really!
|
|
Cons:
|
noticable CA on contrasty details, price. Very high contrast needs correction (usually -2 to -3 in DPP)
|
|
|
Excellent lens. Do not hestiate to buy it....if you have over $2k to spend.
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2008
|
|
CTO-Photos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 2, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,150.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Crisp, accurate color, great perspective.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy and expensive
|
|
|
I saw it a couple of days ago in the store - an unusual sight. Then read the FM reviews on it. I am in the queue for a 5D Mark II and wanted something to give me 10-22 functionality on a full-frame camera. I took some shots with the EOS-1V today to get a true sense of the perspective and then some shots with a 40D to check the center crispness and color. As others have said, this lens is likely to become a favorite.
It was a lot of money for a small prime lens and feels like block of lead in my hand, but it offers so much potential.
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2008
|
|
noricom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 43
|
|
Review Date: Jul 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
At the moment my absolute favorite lens:
[url] http://www.noricom-db.de/blog/index.php?showimage=10[/url]
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 9, 2008
|
|
Gaonan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 16, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp and rich color and contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
hard to keep dust away
|
|
|
This is a follow-up for my previous statement. I sold my 35mm f/2 and bought 35mm f/1.4L. Both 14mm and 35mm are very sharp for their focal length. But as I said before, we should compare lenses for similar focal length for the fairness. Both serve their purpose very well. I also have 135mm f/2L and 85mm f/1.2L. I find it very difficult to use the 85mm since it has a very shallow DOFand relative slow auto focus. I am very happy to use them all, and thier are sharper than equivalent focal length from L zoom lenses. I usually carry 2 1D series mounted with prime lenses and zoom lens on my 20D. It is heavy to carry them all but I always get good result from them.
I sold my 17-40 mm and EF-S 10-22mm after I bought the 14mm. I still keep my 24-105 mm f/4L and 27-70 mm f/2.8L for general purpose on a trip.
|
|
|
May 16, 2008
|
|
Gil_W
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1899
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,995.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, not much distortion at all if held level, fast, great colors and saturation, well made, nifty lens cap
|
|
Cons:
|
Protruding lens is scary, price is too :(
|
|
|
Was reluctant to get this lens due to price, amount of projected usage I would get and history of the mkI. Was very pleased when I got the lens and find I am using it more then I thought. Lens produces excellent images and I love it on my 1Ds, wonderful pictures with that combo. I just wish the price was not so high, but I guess it's just the way it is with a lens of this caliber.
I have the 35L but feel they should not be compared. I can do things with each lens that will not work well with the other.
I also have the Tokina 12-24 for my 20D (IR) and 40D. While the Tokina is wonderful, the images that the 14L produces is a bit better color and saturation wise. Plus the 14L can use it on my two 1 series cameras.
If you want wide on a FF or 1.3 crop and don't mind dropping a fist full of dollars, I would say this lens is the way to go.
|
|
|
May 14, 2008
|
|
JanPhoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: May 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,999.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Crazy-Sharp, Colors Just Great, Light in Weight ...
|
|
Cons:
|
NoN-Nada !
|
|
|
In my practice, and I am telling you as pro-shooter being “spoiled“ by 8X10 SINAR, that this baby is just great. In simple words, if you are looking for wide-angle glass this is the one. If anyone says otherwise, maybe he forgot to take cap off the lens.
|
|
|
May 9, 2008
|
|
Henry Goh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 23, 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 91
|
|
Review Date: May 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast focus, lightweight, resistant to flare and render nice colors
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
After waiting what seemed like eternity for the EOS-G adapter so that I could use the Nikon 14-24mm, I decided to cancel the order as I could not get a definitive reply from the seller. It was a damn good decision because I immediately went and bought this fine lens.
I need not forego AF and yet I have a sharp and lightweight 14mm.
Really happy with this lens.
|
|
|
May 5, 2008
|
|
junglehs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 13, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,965.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
wide and sharp. great lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
nothing (considering physics)
|
|
|
Got this lens because I love WA. I owned the 16-35 (version I). This is waaaaay better. Go and get it. I can highly recommend it. My currently favorite focal lenghts are 85L, 135L and 14L II.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2008
|
|
Gaonan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,950.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very shape in low light too. better than EF-S 10-20.
|
|
Cons:
|
a bit pricy but it is a new product.
|
|
|
ecellent wide angle lens for f2.8. It is not fair to compare with 35mm since they are not in the same category. I can not understand why there is a 7 rating. It must be a bad copy.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
39
|
157661
|
Oct 5, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
92% of reviewers
|
$2,011.00
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.97
|
7.41
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
