14mm is often too narrow/tele for me. I use the Canon 15mm Fish Eye. It's a moderately priced (approx $600) but very hi IQ lens (due to its simple semi-spherical lens formula). Mine is sharp edge to edge wide open @ F2.8 on my 1Ds Mk III.
I use inexpensive software (ImageTrendsInc or PT lens-trials versions available) when I want to "de-Fish" some images. Understand that a 14mm "Rectalinear" UWA lens is first a spherical lens with a whole lot of very expensive Big ground glass in front to "Rectalinearize" the spherical image. So why not do this better with cheap software?
I just picked up the Sigma 14mm f2.8... goes for about $500 used and I'm VERY impressed. Very sharp and I actually sometimes want MORE distortion for that UWA look. I'm using it on a crop body and there's been some comments that you notice the distortion and lack of sharpness much more on a full frame... oh well.. I plan on using a crop body for a long time.. I need my 85L to be a 135mm f1.2 for concerts I picked up the 14mm for low light concert shoots when I need to get the whole band in a shot from the pit... should work great!
The Sigma 14mm/2.8 EX looks interesting. FM reviews are mostly positive. It's significantly cheaper than the Canon 14 or Nikon 14-24 which gives me more room to buy "other stuff".
Anybody have experience with IQ vs the 17-40 at 17mm?
I've never tried the 17-40, but compared to the rest of my line up (85L, 50mm f1.4, 70-300IS, Tamron 28-75 etc) it holds its own.. obviously not as sharp as the 85L but sharp as all the others. Portraits with the 14mm (you have to get REALLY close to fill the frame) show detail in the iris's of peoples eyes and pores on the skin.. and for shots further away I'm not seeing much loss of detail at 100% crop. After getting the 85L I've become really picky as to how sharp a lens has to be to stay in my bag.. and the 14mm is still in there.
DoubleNegative, SmegHead, and Shuko; are you comparing the Sigma 14mm or the Canon to your other lenses? It's hard to tell with how the thread has wandered.
Jess Edward wrote:
Its so hard to tell how wide the 14mm lens is from samples of outdoor scenery. If you took those same photos with a 16mm, 20mm, or 24mm they would all look the same pretty much.
I would love to see some photos of people taken at 14mm. I shoot a lot of events at 16mm and I have considered buying the 14mm for this type of thing.
I almost bought the Sigma 14mm from Amazon until I realized that it wasn't a Canon mount. That would have been a fairly significant "oops". Keeping in mind that I have the 35mm/1.4L and 24-105/4L-IS (which may end up being a 24-70/2.8L), the choices appear to be:
Canon 14mm/2.8L MkII - $2,000
Canon 14mm/2.8L $1,400
Zeiss 18mm ZE ?
Canon 16-35mm/2.8L $1,500
Nikon 12-24mm + adapter $1,600 (if I'm going zoom, I might as well get the 16-15 for less money)
The zooms bother me both because I really am trying to shift to primes, plus I already have their long end covered. It feels like I'd be paying extra for focal length and zoom that I'm not really interested in.
The 14mm MkII is just expensive (not a show stopper) but the MkI seems to have pretty consistently bad reviews. 14mm is really also a little wider than I really "need", but that's not a show stopper either. Ideally, I'd like to see something like an 18mm/2.8 with AF for about $1,200). AF is also not critical, but I can use an AF lens in MF mode and not vice-versa.
Rojhan wrote:
I almost bought the Sigma 14mm from Amazon until I realized that it wasn't a Canon mount. That would have been a fairly significant "oops". Keeping in mind that I have the 35mm/1.4L and 24-105/4L-IS (which may end up being a 24-70/2.8L), the choices appear to be:
Canon 14mm/2.8L MkII - $2,000
Canon 14mm/2.8L $1,400
Zeiss 18mm ZE ?
Canon 16-35mm/2.8L $1,500
Nikon 12-24mm + adapter $1,600 (if I'm going zoom, I might as well get the 16-15 for less money)
The zooms bother me both because I really am trying to shift to primes, plus I already have their long end covered. It feels like I'd be paying extra for focal length and zoom that I'm not really interested in.
The 14mm MkII is just expensive (not a show stopper) but the MkI seems to have pretty consistently bad reviews. 14mm is really also a little wider than I really "need", but that's not a show stopper either. Ideally, I'd like to see something like an 18mm/2.8 with AF for about $1,200). AF is also not critical, but I can use an AF lens in MF mode and not vice-versa.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The Nikon 14-24 is prime quality, it really is that good.
I don't know if I really want to go down the path of adapter, manual aperture, etc., although there seems to be quite a bit of "wow" surrounding this lens. And, if I'm going to spend ~$1,800 for lens + adapter, and lose the use of the electronics on the lens, it seems like I'd be best served by something else.
I found a 20-35mm/2.8L locally for $400. Haven't looked at it. The FM reviews are a bit mixed. It may be worthwhile to grab it and see if I can test-drive it and keep it until "something else" comes along.
I picked up the 14mm for low light concert shoots when I need to get the whole band in a shot from the pit... should work great!
?