Considering 14MM 2.8L II Lens Purchase

[RedEye]

Greetings. I'm considering the costly purchase of a 14mm 2.8 L II lens. Would appreaciate any sample photos or other feedback, especially from those who felt that the lens underserved their needs or situations.

Thanks,
Red

 

[Caps18]

What kind of lenses do you have now? Are you using a full frame camera? Have you considered other lenses?

I will be biased towards the 17 TS-E because of the types of pictures I take. And I really am not a fan of the keystone problem when shooting tall things with ultra-wide angles...

 

[markIVantony]

Hi RedEye, I would highly suggest browsing the Lens Sample Photo Archive at http://photography-on-the.net

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=624911

Endless examples from all types of shooters.

 

[acoll123]

I replaced a 16-35 II with my 14 - much sharper (especially at the corners) IMO. I use a 1dIV and 5dII. I have per-ordered the new 24-70 to cover the rest of the WA range. If you don't have something in the 24 range, I would start there before getting the 14 - unless you are using a crop like a 7D or 60D. In that case, I think it would function close to a 24 on full frame.

I use mine for landscapes where I want to include a lot of sky and also for indoor functions in tight quarters - have to be careful with a flash because you have to work so closely. I took a beach shot yesterday - I will load a sample photo tomorrow.

 

[RedEye]

What kind of lenses do you have now? Are you using a full frame camera? Have you considered other lenses?

I will be biased towards the 17 TS-E because of the types of pictures I take. And I really am not a fan of the keystone problem when shooting tall things with ultra-wide angles...

I have a Sigma 10-20 3.5 for a crop frame. I'm going to upgrade to a full frame with the next camera release and so this is a bit premptive but I'm getting ready for an upcoming trip to visit the major sites in Rome, Vatican, ect, and wanted a fast lens which would allow me to express the beauty of some of my favorite sites. I hear you on the keystone issue as I'll normally be looking up... so I was considering a tilt shift, however I'm not sure if this will have the quality I would like for the new FF camera, nor would it be as universally used for when I don't need the extra height. Thanks for your input.

 

[Viggo]

+1 for the TS-E 17mm

It's a lot more useful than the 14, and much sharper in the corners. I traded my 14 for the 17 as I just couldn't stop being very annoyed with the converging lines of everything you don't shoot dead straight on.

Things I liked more about the 14: Size, weathersealing/dustsealing. AF (very fast indeed) and f2,8 aperture.

Things I love about the TS 17mm, ALL of it's tilt, shift and (independent) rotating capabilities, you have such an immense varity of subjects that will benefit from it, and IQ is fantastic!

 

[RedEye]

Hi RedEye, I would highly suggest browsing the Lens Sample Photo Archive at http://photography-on-the.net

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=624911

Endless examples from all types of shooters.

Thanks for the very helpful link! I think that I can appreciate quite a bit of the work shown on the page, as my principle point of choosing the 14mm is to incorporate more photo data in each shot, without causing the viewer to instantly know that they are viewing a 'special angle' or 'odd' shot. A city landscape for instance, taken at roof top level, with the lens perfectly level - I'm hoping that I will be able to take home the most real instance of 'being there' as possible - or elsewise make the composition of the photo sufficiently inclusive and dynamic to aid in the recolition of memories.

 

[RedEye]

+1 for the TS-E 17mm

It's a lot more useful than the 14, and much sharper in the corners. I traded my 14 for the 17 as I just couldn't stop being very annoyed with the converging lines of everything you don't shoot dead straight on.

Things I liked more about the 14: Size, weathersealing/dustsealing. AF (very fast indeed) and f2,8 aperture.

Things I love about the TS 17mm, ALL of it's tilt, shift and (independent) rotating capabilities, you have such an immense varity of subjects that will benefit from it, and IQ is fantastic!

Thanks for your input. In honest I'm without experience using TS so I'll research it a bit.

 

[RedEye]

Re: Considering 14MM 2.8L II Lens Purchase or 17MM TS

Perhaps we should change the thread to 14MM vs 17MM Tilt Shift

 

[jasonsim]

Well, unless you get a FF before your trip, I think a 14mm is pretty useless on a crop. The EF-S 15-85mm would be a better choice for a crop on a oversees trip in my opinion.

I had the 14mm II L for a short time and sold it. Did not use it that much and replaced it with a 16-35mm II L. 16mm is plenty damn wide on a FF. A 14mm is not only for getting everything in the shot. You might get stuff you don't want in the shot. It is really used for getting really close to subjects and getting a lot of the background in too. These are your more artistic / creative type compositions.

For architectural subjects, I would agree with others here that a TS lens is better. I love my Canon 24mm TS-E f/3.5L II lens for that on my 5D II. I chose the 24mm TS-E over the 17mm TS-E, because I can use screw on filters on it...CPL's, ND's etc that I would typically use for landscape and architecture shots.

Note though that you will probably want to use a sturdy tripod with any TS-E. And also know that they are manual focus. Lenses to take your time with. So if you don't think you will have the luxury of taking lots of time to set up a shot and don't want to lug around a tripod, then I'd consider a 24-105mm L as a first travel lens option for FF. Then add a 16-35mm for wider even.

Sample taken with 24mm TS-E II:

 

[jwong]

Thanks for your input. In honest I'm without experience using TS so I'll research it a bit.

Agree with jasonsim. It does not make sense to use a tilt shift without a tripod, and the TS 17mm is not that wide on a crop. Keep your Sigma 10-20 and save the money until after you go full frame, or perhaps rent a FF and T/S and a 16-35mm for the trip. The 14mm makes more sense for full frame users that already have wide primes (i.e. 17 and/or 24), and they won't get much benefit by replicating their primes in a 16-35 zoom. For those that don't have wide primes, the 16-35 sounds like it's the way to go.

 

[RedEye]

Thanks for your input. In honest I'm without experience using TS so I'll research it a bit.

Agree with jasonsim. It does not make sense to use a tilt shift without a tripod, and the TS 17mm is not that wide on a crop. Keep your Sigma 10-20 and save the money until after you go full frame, or perhaps rent a FF and T/S and a 16-35mm for the trip. The 14mm makes more sense for full frame users that already have wide primes (i.e. 17 and/or 24), and they won't get much benefit by replicating their primes in a 16-35 zoom. For those that don't have wide primes, the 16-35 sounds like it's the way to go.

Thank you both for the solid advice. An account of the tripod needs (which is very appreciated toward the result) and the manual focus, I think I'll go with either a wide prime or a wide zoom, do my best to hold level, and the do what affecting in post processing I can without losing too much of the image or making the processing apparent to every viewer.

 

[Viggo]

I hardly ever use my TS 17 on a tripod, it's perfectly easy to use with LV at f8 handheld. Manual focus is very easy as you get focus confirmation. I use it on a tripod when I want to apply some tilt to get everything in focus with a landscape shot, or hdr, but you would use tripod for those shots with any lens.

Using the 17 as "normal" uw-lens is no issue, I do it all the time. Tracking my son at close distances was easier with the 14, I tend to use my 24 for that purpose.

Don't think the TS lenses are waaay to intricate and special and difficult to use, they can easily be used for a lot of things and need no set-up time. For instance the example picture of the building in b&w can be done by turning on LV (or use the VF) aim at the buildings so the lines are parallell and shift up until you include what you'd like, done. No magic......

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd also wait until you got your full frame. 14mm is equivalent to 8.75mm on a crop. Its extremely wide.

 

[Deeohuu]

I'd also wait until you got your full frame. 14mm is equivalent to 8.75mm on a crop. Its extremely wide.

This surprises me. I would have said a little over 22 on a crop.

 

[Axilrod]

I'd also wait until you got your full frame. 14mm is equivalent to 8.75mm on a crop. Its extremely wide.

This surprises me. I would have said a little over 22 on a crop.

He meant you would need an 8.75mm lens on an aps-c camera to have the equivalent field of view of a 14mm on full frame. You were talking about the FF equivalent if you put the 14mm on an aps-c camera.

 

[jwong]

I'd also wait until you got your full frame. 14mm is equivalent to 8.75mm on a crop. Its extremely wide.

This surprises me. I would have said a little over 22 on a crop.

Spokane meant that you would need a 8.75mm lens on a crop to match the 14mm on a full frame.

 

[RedEye]

Right, and I think the overall width is part of the point, especially if you might crop some of it out when correcting the verticle distortion in PP.

 

[neuroanatomist]

...my principle point of choosing the 14mm is to incorporate more photo data in each shot, without causing the viewer to instantly know that they are viewing a 'special angle' or 'odd' shot. A city landscape for instance, taken at roof top level, with the lens perfectly level - I'm hoping that I will be able to take home the most real instance of 'being there' as possible - or elsewise make the composition of the photo sufficiently inclusive and dynamic to aid in the recolition of memories.

That's a common pitfall with an ultrawide lens. You see a majestic, sweeping landscape or cityscape with your eyes, point the camera at it, and take the picture. When you get home, you look at the image, and it's flat and uninspiring, with no sense of depth.

Ultrawide compositions are tricky, usually requiring some strong element(s) in the foreground to add depth.

 

[RedEye]

...my principle point of choosing the 14mm is to incorporate more photo data in each shot, without causing the viewer to instantly know that they are viewing a 'special angle' or 'odd' shot. A city landscape for instance, taken at roof top level, with the lens perfectly level - I'm hoping that I will be able to take home the most real instance of 'being there' as possible - or elsewise make the composition of the photo sufficiently inclusive and dynamic to aid in the recolition of memories.

That's a common pitfall with an ultrawide lens. You see a majestic, sweeping landscape or cityscape with your eyes, point the camera at it, and take the picture. When you get home, you look at the image, and it's flat and uninspiring, with no sense of depth.

Ultrawide compositions are tricky, usually requiring some strong element(s) in the foreground to add depth.

I agree and well said, hence my hesitation in just going out and throwning down for a super wide lens. I've been working with my 10-20 over the last couple months looking for ways to tell the story without the push-pull of a wide angle becoming the focus of attention. Frequently this is resolved by finding the correct mix of ambient lighting.