Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
- Thread starter Macadameane
- Start date
Taken at 2.8. I was pleased with the sharpness of the image
Jenny at 14 (2) by Macadameane, on Flickr
Jenny at 14 (2) by Macadameane, on Flickr
Upvote
0
B
branden
Guest
I can't help but notice that you're the only person who's contributed to this thread so far 
How often do you pull the 14L out? I imagine a lens so wide is basically a specialty lens? Or am I off track?
Thanks
How often do you pull the 14L out? I imagine a lens so wide is basically a specialty lens? Or am I off track?
Thanks
Upvote
0
Well, I have a 7D, so its not quite as specialized and I pull it out all the time. Its a nice wide lens. When I go full frame, that'll be the test. I expect this lens to keep its value, so if it is too wide for me (or I have little use for it) I may sell it, but I expect that I will enjoy it then too.
Upvote
0
H
Heidrun
Guest
I want this lens. Im saving for this one . Gonna do some footballground pictures with it. The pictures that i take when im at the stadium. And offcource it must be Elland Road at Leeds United that im taking pictures of
Upvote
0
The first picture is a great shot.
On a 7D, it would be the same as shooting with a 22 or 23mm lens on the full frame camera. And I would agree that it looks like what I would see with my 16-35mm on the 5Dm2.
I still use 16mm on the Full Frame camera, and sometimes wish for more on the low end.
On a 7D, it would be the same as shooting with a 22 or 23mm lens on the full frame camera. And I would agree that it looks like what I would see with my 16-35mm on the 5Dm2.
I still use 16mm on the Full Frame camera, and sometimes wish for more on the low end.
Upvote
0
I had the 14 for a couple of years, had fun with it on FF, for the shots you need as wide as possible, it's a great choice.. color rendition is some of the best I've seen from Canon. But I will totally recommend what I traded it for instead, the TS 17 L.. @ thought the converging lines of the 14 made it very limited, point it up or down and you'll see... I initially thought the 17 was too specialized, but nothing can be further from the truth, it is extremely easy to use, an endless list of creative possibilities, and crazy IQ. It might be half as fast at f4 and no filters or AF or weathersealing, but that doesn't matter when you start using it. The 14 is weathersealed, but you still can't use it in the rain, that front element is a magnet for droplets.
Upvote
0
T
TCampbell
Guest
Reflect by Tim Campbell1, on Flickr
This looks like a lake, but it actually is a pond and not particularly large. The 14mm perspective makes it looks like a long swim to the other side.
EXIF data is available when viewed at Flickr. This was shot with a full frame body (5D mk II).
Upvote
0
T
TCampbell
Guest
Martha-Mary Chapel by Tim Campbell1, on Flickr
The low angle causes the steeple to lean away. The lens is inches above the grass for this shot.
EXIF data is available when viewed at Flickr. This was shot with a full-frame body (5D mk II).
Upvote
0
I am thinking about selling my 16-35 II to get the 14 II. I queried Aperture and 90% of my shots with the 16-35 were at 16 on my 5DmkII. I have also read that the 14 will have less distortion at the edges than the 16-35 which is something that always bothered me about the 16-35.
Anyone else make the choice between the 14 and the 16-35?
Anyone else make the choice between the 14 and the 16-35?
Upvote
0
acoll123 said:
IMO, if you are using the 16-35mm to shoot landscapes, then you do not want to replace it with the 14mm.
I have the 14mm f/2.8 Mark I. It is a different beast than other ultra-wide angle lenses, as it is rectilinear: it forces straight lines to remain straight. However, due to the extreme wide angle, parallel lines seem to merge off in the distance, and things off in the distance become very small. It is great for making an interior seem huge (real estate agents use for that purpose!) or getting up close to something to distort the perspective. Also, since the 14mm has a convex lens, you cannot put a filter on it.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Gotta love how the forward pots (which are very close to the camera) look as if you are pointing down and the rear ones are at a more normal perspective.
Upvote
0
acoll123 said:
I have both the 14 II and the 16-35 II as well as the 17mm TSE. As stated elsewhere in the forum, I love the 17 TSE. For this type of landscape work I only use my 5D MK2. I have some real questions about the 14mm. I had to send the first one back because the focus was way wrong. In addition the blue fringing was about as bad as I have ever seen on any lens. The second copy had better focus but I had to enable the CA correction to 187 and also a +4 on the blue/green fringe manual correction on CS5 Adobe Raw and still I had blue fringe in the vertical direction that I could not correct - see upper branches on tree on right side. Perhaps I find a use for it someday, but it will not be on wide landscapes on bright days.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
