User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Thoughts on Canon EF 14mm II ?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    27 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    650
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Thoughts on Canon EF 14mm II ?

    I've been selling off a few old lenses in preparation for an eventual move to a Canon 5D2... my dilemma is which ultra wide angle lens would replace my current 10-22 lens...?

    I've been heading towards a Canon 16-35mm II, though by all accounts its barely better than a 17-40mm on a full frame, at twice the cost, with significant barrel distortion and CA.

    An opportunity has arisen to buy a used Canon 14mm II at a vaguely half-reasonable price (still more than a new 16-35mm...).

    I'm tempted, but was wondering if anyone here has tried and tested the 14mm? Particularly relative to the 16-35mm? I'll be shooting mostly landscapes and architectural shots with the lens.

    I do love insanely wide lenses, which would suggest the 14mm is the right lens... but then I wonder if its too big a gap between the 14mm and my next widest lens, the 24-105mm? Probably OK.

    Any thoughts appreciated...
    Richard
    Canon 5D4 | 11-24 f/4 L | 24-105 f/4 L| 100-400 L II | 85 f/1.2 L | 100 f/2.8 L macro | MP-E 65 f/2.8 macro | 1.4x | 580EX2 | MT-24 Twin Lite | Manfrotto | Photoshop CS5


  2. #2
    Member markjaffa's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Feb 2011
    Location
    Augusta
    Posts
    141
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have the 16-35 II and wanted to go wider, but didnt want to fork out the coin for the Canon 14mm. I looked around and found the Samyang f2.8 14mm Manual Focus. Picked one up for about $460 delivered. It suffers from fairly intense "moustache" distortion, but the PTLens plug-in in PS takes care of it easily. According to one review, the Samyang is capable of resolving better than the Canon, for a fifth the price! No autofocus, but I use it for landscapes, so set it to infinity and its all good 90% of the time. Its an option!
    Canon 5D Mk II - gripped, Samyang 14mm f2.8, Canon 16-35mm f2.8L, 50mm f1.2L, 100mm Macro f2.8L, 70-200mm IS II f2.8L, Gitzo CF tripod and Gitzo CF monopod, Acratech GP Ballhead, Manfrotto Video Fluid Head, Intervalometer, and lots of other stuff!

  3. #3
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,894
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why not simply keep the 7D? Shooting two bodies is a mile better than mucking about with only one, no matter how good it is. And if you plan to sell the 7D to part-finance the full framer, then get an old Canon body just for the UWA - I use my wonderful old 20D for exactly this purpose, and it does it briliantly.
    Tony

    People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    19 Aug 2010
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the 17-40 is not a bad deal, they sell for around $600 second hand
    1DIII, 5DII, 15mm fish, 24mm ts-e, 35L,135L,200L,400L,mpe-65mm
    Film: eos 300, pentax 6x7

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
    I've been heading towards a Canon 16-35mm II, though by all accounts its barely better than a 17-40mm on a full frame, at twice the cost, with significant barrel distortion and CA.
    I'm not sure where you heard that feedback, but I've been shooting with my 16-35/2.8L II since 2007 (on full-frame DSLRs), and higher cost aside, haven't found that to be the case at all.

    The 14/2.8L II has appeal to me because it's wider and is a prime, but one thing to take into consideration is that it's not possible to natively fit filters, as the objective element protrudes, and there is an in-built metal lens hood and no filter thread.

    Maybe there's a third-party accessory for fitting creative filters (Lee et al.), but I'm not aware of one. Mind you, it has been some time since I last looked into that.

  6. #6
    Way Down Yonder in the Paw Paw Patch jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jun 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,340
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
    ... but then I wonder if its too big a gap between the 14mm and my next widest lens, the 24-105mm? Probably OK.
    Almost certainly ok. My experience is that you don't really notice the lenses you don't have unless you need them for a specific purpose, or the gap is very wide.

    Only since zooms came into fashion have people felt that they needed to cover every possible focal length. Really you don't.

  7. #7
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    27 Feb 2008
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    650
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tannin View Post
    Why not simply keep the 7D? Shooting two bodies is a mile better than mucking about with only one, no matter how good it is. And if you plan to sell the 7D to part-finance the full framer, then get an old Canon body just for the UWA - I use my wonderful old 20D for exactly this purpose, and it does it briliantly.
    Hi Tony - I am starting to come round to the idea of keeping the 7D... as you say, its a matter of funding. Would be good to have the 7D both for the Tokina zoomfish and 10-22, as they're two of my favourite lenses... And also useful if I ever buy a 100-400 or 400 5.6, to get that extra 1.6x crop reach. Decisions decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by markjaffa
    I have the 16-35 II and wanted to go wider, but didnt want to fork out the coin for the Canon 14mm. I looked around and found the Samyang f2.8 14mm Manual Focus. Picked one up for about $460 delivered. It suffers from fairly intense "moustache" distortion, but the PTLens plug-in in PS takes care of it easily. According to one review, the Samyang is capable of resolving better than the Canon, for a fifth the price! No autofocus, but I use it for landscapes, so set it to infinity and its all good 90% of the time. Its an option!
    Hmmm, thanks mark, I'll look into it. Might be an option alongside a 17-40...

    Quote Originally Posted by fabian628 View Post
    the 17-40 is not a bad deal, they sell for around $600 second hand
    Hi Fabian, yep, the 17-40 is an excellent value for money deal. I've noticed that owners of the 17-40 tend to be very happy with their lens and stick up for it, which is usually a good indicator!

    Quote Originally Posted by Xenedis View Post
    I'm not sure where you heard that feedback, but I've been shooting with my 16-35/2.8L II since 2007 (on full-frame DSLRs), and higher cost aside, haven't found that to be the case at all.

    The 14/2.8L II has appeal to me because it's wider and is a prime, but one thing to take into consideration is that it's not possible to natively fit filters, as the objective element protrudes, and there is an in-built metal lens hood and no filter thread.
    I think I got that feedback from www.photozone.de - their reviews are rather technical/measurement orientated...

    Good point re the filters, but I don't tend to use them much. When I do, I'm often so lazy that I just hold them in place in front of the lens!

    Quote Originally Posted by jim View Post
    Almost certainly ok. My experience is that you don't really notice the lenses you don't have unless you need them for a specific purpose, or the gap is very wide.

    Only since zooms came into fashion have people felt that they needed to cover every possible focal length. Really you don't.
    Hi Jim - yep, very true. And when I shoot with the 10-22, its almost always at the 10mm end (or rolled back a tad to 12mm to reduce barrel distortion). At which point the 14mm makes sense....

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    30 Nov 2010
    Location
    Craigieburn
    Posts
    104
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Tricky:
    My opinion is to buy the 14L as you mostly take landscapes and architectural and have the chance to have it cheaper. It's the best of it's kind. The price tag tells all. Don't follow others trying to buy somethingelse cheaper,but your mind keeps thinking 14L. If you can afford, always buy the best lens, and you'll never regret.

  9. #9
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
    I think I got that feedback from www.photozone.de - their reviews are rather technical/measurement orientated...
    I cannot say I'm very au fait with that site's reviews, but at any rate, I tend to consider real-world results more meaningful than Internet-based measurebation.

    I have spent a lot of my shooting time looking through my 16-35/2.8L II, and let me assure you that straight lines remain straight when the axis of the lens is parallel to the ground.

    Feel free to peruse my gallery of images captured with my 16-35/2.8L II and see if its performance grabs you.

    If you do go for the 14/2.8L II, I'd be interested to hear how you find it. It is a lens I still find interesting, but while 16-35 is not as wide, is more versatile and practical, especially as I use creative filters (grads and NDs). I occasionally use a focal length other than 16mm, but I tend to favour primes (five of my seven lenses are primes).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •