EF 14mm F2.8L II

[HDNitehawk]

Not quite two years ago when I got my first 5D Mark II, I thought I needed a wide angle lens. Not really knowing much about wide angle I choose the 14mm. When I got it and tried it...it scared me. I was not expecting this kind of width or distortion. I studied about it and used it a few days and then packed it up and sent it back, and got the 16-35mm II instead. I was not ready.......


Now fast foward ahead from early 2009 to Now.....After all this time I look back at these pictures and think maybe I am ready to try it again. The diffrence between 14mm and 16mm doesn't sound like much, but it can be huge...maybe I should trade the 16-35mm off and get one again....maybe...maybe I am ready now.... it wouldn't take much to push me over the edge and buy it...MAYBE someone can talk me out of this madness...


Here are a few samples of what I shot with the 14mm in 2009 ....


/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-47-09/SamNoble1.JPG/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-47-09/SamNoble2.JPG

[Richard Lane]

Hey Hawk,


The widest lens I own is the 10-22mm on a 7D, which is 16mm at its widest, and I usually use at 11 or 12mm, so I agree with you that 2mm makes a difference. The question would be whether you would like to make a $1000 deposit into your camera bag, after selling your 16-35mm. It seems like you have enough other lenses that you wouldn't really miss the 16-35mm. It's really an expensive, specialty lens, so it depends if you would rather put that money towards a new 5D3 when it comes out.


It seems like Canon will be coming out with a lot of new toys in 2011, so I would probably wait.


Maybe you should rent it for 4 days for $70 to get it out of your system.


If you're bored.., may I interest you in a nice new fisheye 8-15mm f/4L lens?


Please step away from the mouse and don't make any drastic decisions until you can sleep on it.





Rich





(PS: You have a typo in the title, I believe it's the f/2.8L)

[peety3]

I don

[neuroanatomist]

With my 10-22mm on my 7D, I often found myself shooting in the 13-17mm range - that's one reason I got the TS-E 24mm instead of the 17mm version. Still, I think shots at ultra-ultra wide angles can be amazing! I find composition at those wide angles challenging, personally (still, I'll end up with a 16-35mm a some point). I do think the 14mm would be an amazingly fun lens, though! Not sure about trading the 16-35mm for it, but if you have a 24-xzoom, maybe a good plan!



Richard, the original poster was in fact correct: there is a Mark II version out there that really improved over the original.


Actually, Richard was correct but the OP edited his post title already - it originally read f/2.6L II.

[ddt0725]

I think these shots are really, really cool! I'd love to have a super wide-angle lens but I have to prioritize and my top priority I think should be to win the lottery!!! Way too many awesome lenses to choose from lately especially if I add the ones that haven't even hit the stores yet!


Denise

[Richard Lane]

<div>






Hey Hawk,


The widest lens I own is the 10-22mm on a 7D, which is 16mm at its widest, and I usually use at 11 or 12mm, so I agree with you that 2mm makes a difference.


Rich





To clarify my post, I meant to suggest that I usually shoot the EF-S 10-22mm lens no wider than 11-12mm, in other words.., I don't like the 10mm because I feel it has too much distortion at 10mm.


Neuro, after reading your post it made me realize what I was trying to say. I also prefer the "middle range" of the EF-S 10-22mm lens, so I can certainly see why you chose the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L for your new 5DII. You can stay in the wide angle sweet spot at 24mm FF, plus you get to control some distortion.


I find that if you go much wider than 16mm full frame for landscapes, it pushes the scene so far back that I seem to lose some emotional connection to the photo.


Hawk, I do realize however, that the 14mm could be very useful for tight architectural work.





Rich
<div></div>
</div>

[HDNitehawk]

Maybe you should rent it for 4 days for $70 to get it out of your system.


Rich


I read your response on my I phone earlier today and mulled it over. I think that is excellent advice for this lens. The lens is so much a specialty that I could only see myself getting it out maybe three or four times a year. No more than I would spend on rent, it probably wouldn't exceed the cost of what I would loose in depreciation. And there are indeed some interesting lens coming out next year....the 500mm F4L II will be getting my attention. Thanks





Peety3


Maybe distortion isn't the right word. 14mm will fatten up your family members...and it will stretch out any thing on the sides. Its a very interesting lens....


POSSIBLY this is the most dangerous lens Canon makes. If a photographer doing a photo shoot with this lens of runway models, he could show the models the pictures afterwards to the models and within a week they would all starve to death.


Neuro


I think you made the right choice with the 24mm. The 17mm would bend the edges and to me would create to much post processing. I liked Bryan's review of the 24mm, if I read it right he rated the 24mm a little better than the 17mm.


...And the 14mm is fun for the reason you stated, I remember it was so hard to compose a picture. You had to be so close to a subject, or just the right angle or location to make it work. I found that very fun. Being my first super wide lens it was to much of a specialty. With the 16-35mm II I found 16mm to be challenging but not nearly on the scale of the 14mm. I have learned a lot over the past 20 months..it would be fun to play with the lens again and see what I can do now..





I did indeed change the original heading..It had a typo

[HDNitehawk]

Rich


I understood completely what you were saying. I have the 16-35mm and when I use it I would stay well above the 16mm. Unless I was trying to do something unusual.


Now I have the 35mm F1.4L and the 24mm F1.4L II. I haven

[neuroanatomist]

I will say that the 10mm end of the EF-S 10-22mm came in very handy when I wanted to take pictures of my wife and daughter and all three of us were sitting inside a Spinning-Teacups type of ride... [:)]

[HDNitehawk]

I will say that the 10mm end of the EF-S 10-22mm came in very handy when I wanted to take pictures of my wife and daughter and all three of us were sitting inside a Spinning-Teacups type of ride


Now that sounds like it could be interesting. With a slow enough shutter speed you could have some very interesting bokeh

[greggf]

Kind of on the subject...and a little off. I haven

[Sheiky]

MAYBE someone can talk me out of this madness...


I personally would love a wide angle prime like the 14mmL. I have shot a few times with a 10-22 zoom on a 50D andI felt like I only needed the 10mm part, since the rest of the zoomrange wasn't realy usefull while having an ultra-wide lens.


Now that I have a 5D, I have also had the need for a wider angle than the 24mm I'm limited to right now. I tried the Canon 17-40 and the Sigma 12-24. The Sigma was definitely in favor. I really like to have that extra ultra wide, without getting into fish eye. However at the time I needed a fast prime, so I went for that. But I did really like the 12mm and I think it would have gotten some very interesting compositions.


I personally think I would really like the 14mm prime [A] And if you look at some other reviews, it has a lot less distortion than the 16-35L. That might be just why you don't shoot a lot on 16mm, and others don't like the 10mm on their zooms[:P]


Anyway good luck with it. And if you were just looking for a fun 14mm, take a look at this one ("http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff). It will make all your landscapes smile [;)] But it would make a great lens for ultra wide angle filming [A]