# Buying a 14mm f2.8 ii



## Cheekysascha (Sep 21, 2015)

Hey guys! so last weekend I went on a road trip from Oslo to Bergen and did a lot of landscape photography with a 24-70 f2.8ii and a 17-40 but was noticing that I really wanted to be able to shoot wider as the landscape in Norway is quite wide open so I've been looking at buying the 14mm 2.8ii for another road trip that I'm doing from Bergen to Alesund in November which is even more wide open landscapes.

I know the 16-35 f4 is also an amazing lens but I wanted to go for the widest possible without breaking my wallet with the new 11-24 f4 lens so would it be worth getting the 14mm? is it a good and sharp lens? so far all the reviews I've read have been good but It's still almost 1900 pounds so I'm trying to see all the pros and cons of it.

Any help/feedback and suggestions would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## arthurbikemad (Sep 21, 2015)

I got the mk2 and loved it! It's VERY sharp IMO, I became so fond of it (odd as I rarely like shooting wide) that I sold it on and invested in the 11-24/4, I do miss f2.8 but the 11-24 is just mind blowing! 11mm is sooooo wide you have to keep your feet in haha, I still have my 16-35/2,8mk2 as filters are a problem with the 14mm and the 11-24, tbh that is the only issue if you ask me, care of the glass and filters! I'd say you would love it, also is much smaller than the 11-24 also a downside to the new zoom, SIZE!


----------



## Schruminator (Sep 21, 2015)

I had the 14 2.8 Mk1 and have since sold it and purchased the Tamron 15-30 2.8 IS (or whatever their nomenclature is).

It's the first third party lens I have purchased in years and I couldn't be happier with its performance. It's a heck of a lot sharper than the 14mm Mk1 I had, although I have never used the MkII so I can't personally compare there.

Anyways, it's less than the Canon lens and more versatile-- although a smidge less wide. It's worth consideration if you're looking, especially if you intend on doing any photography involving stars (the Canon has terrible coma, the Tamron has it very much under control). Also, at some point if I get time I'll post details, I was able to add a rear filter holder to the Tamron pretty easily as that was the only thing I missed from the Canon offering.

Best of luck in your decision and happy shooting!


----------



## rs (Sep 21, 2015)

Schruminator said:


> Also, at some point if I get time I'll post details, I was able to add a rear filter holder to the Tamron pretty easily as that was the only thing I missed from the Canon offering.



The Canon 14/2.8 II does feature a rear filter holder:


----------



## Viggo (Sep 21, 2015)

I used to have one and the small size, short mfd combined with very good sharpness, fantastic color and contrast. Superb build and hugely fast AF. It was a real winner for me, just grew tired of wide angles.


----------



## No Mayo (Sep 21, 2015)

I own the 14IIL and use it often. I am not sure that this would be the best choice for you as you only mentioned landscape use. This is a 2.8 lens and that is the best reason to choose it over the 11-24 or the 16-35 4.0L. Unless you really need 2.8, I would recommend taking a very hard look at saving for the 11-24 (which sounds like the one that you really want) or stepping up to the quality and marginally wider (than the 17-40) perspective of the 16-35. For me, a low lit venue with people in motion gives the 14 2.8 the stop that very often puts me at 6400 iso instead of 12,800 iso. Just one stop is what so many will say, but that is a very important stop even on the 1DX in terms of noise and to a lesser degree dynamic range. If it were 400 to 800 it would be less of a compromise to make. Without this need, I believe that the 11-24 would be the ideal choice and the 16-35 would be the value choice. Good luck and remember that if you don't need auto focus you could consider a third party 14 that might work for you for just a few hundred dollars.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 21, 2015)

I know it sounds really stupid, like saying just take an iphone.. but have you concidered the Samyang 14mm?

for landscape you don't really need AF, the Samyang is sharp

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=769&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=454&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

, but distorted. There are however lens profiles people have generated:

http://www.svenstork.com/essays/rokinon-14mm-lightroom-lens-profile/

(not used it just provided as an example)


----------



## TeT (Sep 21, 2015)

I use my 14mm Mark I for real estate and landscape; I am always stopped down so avoid most of that lenses shortcomings... The Mark II can only be more awesome...


----------



## Cheekysascha (Sep 22, 2015)

Viggo said:


> I used to have one and the small size, short mfd combined with very good sharpness, fantastic color and contrast. Superb build and hugely fast AF. It was a real winner for me, just grew tired of wide angles.


 Was the colour and constrast that good? and I see you also have a 24-70 how was the AF/sharpness compared to that?


----------



## Cheekysascha (Sep 22, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> I know it sounds really stupid, like saying just take an iphone.. but have you concidered the Samyang 14mm?
> 
> for landscape you don't really need AF, the Samyang is sharp
> 
> ...



I looked at the Samyang lens but I don't think it has weather sealing and that's one of the main selling points that I like having especially in Norway during November but thanks for the info!


----------



## Cheekysascha (Sep 22, 2015)

TeT said:


> I use my 14mm Mark I for real estate and landscape; I am always stopped down so avoid most of that lenses shortcomings... The Mark II can only be more awesome...



Yeah I keep hearing amazing things about the mark 1 already so I think I might just bite the bullet and get the mark 2 tomorrow or on Wednesday


----------



## Cheekysascha (Sep 22, 2015)

Schruminator said:


> I had the 14 2.8 Mk1 and have since sold it and purchased the Tamron 15-30 2.8 IS (or whatever their nomenclature is).
> 
> It's the first third party lens I have purchased in years and I couldn't be happier with its performance. It's a heck of a lot sharper than the 14mm Mk1 I had, although I have never used the MkII so I can't personally compare there.
> 
> ...



The Tamron sounds pretty amazing! but the filter problem isn't too important for me, I'm not a huge filter fan with my photography so if the 14mm can't hold one it's not a real problem for me


----------



## Cheekysascha (Sep 22, 2015)

No Mayo said:


> I own the 14IIL and use it often. I am not sure that this would be the best choice for you as you only mentioned landscape use. This is a 2.8 lens and that is the best reason to choose it over the 11-24 or the 16-35 4.0L. Unless you really need 2.8, I would recommend taking a very hard look at saving for the 11-24 (which sounds like the one that you really want) or stepping up to the quality and marginally wider (than the 17-40) perspective of the 16-35. For me, a low lit venue with people in motion gives the 14 2.8 the stop that very often puts me at 6400 iso instead of 12,800 iso. Just one stop is what so many will say, but that is a very important stop even on the 1DX in terms of noise and to a lesser degree dynamic range. If it were 400 to 800 it would be less of a compromise to make. Without this need, I believe that the 11-24 would be the ideal choice and the 16-35 would be the value choice. Good luck and remember that if you don't need auto focus you could consider a third party 14 that might work for you for just a few hundred dollars.



I forgot to mention that it would also be for low light work and maybe astro photography  but nah I don't like the weight of the 11-24 tbh.. I already have two 5d iiis and a 24-70 and 70-200 in my bag so just adding a 600gram 14mm prime would be the ideal situation for me I think, also i'm not sure if I need AF, I love af and have gotten so used to it that not having it would probably completely change my photography.. however if i didn't want AF the zeiss 15mm distagon looks really amazing and is the same price as the 14mm canon here in Norway


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2015)

Cheekysascha said:


> ......would it be worth getting the 14mm? is it a good and sharp lens? so far all the reviews I've read have been good but It's still almost 1900 pounds so I'm trying to see all the pros and cons of it.
> 
> Any help/feedback and suggestions would be greatly appreciated!



No the 14mm MkII is the worst Canon L lens I ever used. In fact it was so bad I got another thinking it was that individual lens, but it wasn't, both were as bad as each other. Save the money and get the 11-24, it is leagues better, it is in a completely different class to the 14 prime in every way, sharpness, corner performance, CA (which is beyond a joke with the 14 in the corners) flexibility, coatings, contrast, flare, etc, etc.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=977&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=454&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

If you are on a budget then get the old 15mm fisheye and the low cost Fisheye-Hemi Photoshop plugin, it gives better corner sharpness and resolution than the 14 prime for 1/4 the cost, no I'm not kidding, I did several comparisons.


----------



## gregorywood (Sep 22, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> If you are on a budget then get the old 15mm fisheye and the low cost Fisheye-Hemi Photoshop plugin, it gives better corner sharpness and resolution than the 14 prime for 1/4 the cost, no I'm not kidding, I did several comparisons.



I recently acquired a new EF 15mm f/2.8 (was looking high and low for a used one and never expected to actually find a new one). I love this lens and use it more than I imagined. I did not know about the plugin. Thanks very much for that info. I just downloaded it.

Greg


----------



## Schruminator (Sep 22, 2015)

rs said:


> The Canon 14/2.8 II does feature a rear filter holder:



I'm fully aware. The Tamron does not, which is why I mentioned that it's pretty easy to add one if that's a big reason to not buy. I love my 10-stop gel filters and as such a rear filter is regularly used tool in my arsenal.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2015)

gregorywood said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > If you are on a budget then get the old 15mm fisheye and the low cost Fisheye-Hemi Photoshop plugin, it gives better corner sharpness and resolution than the 14 prime for 1/4 the cost, no I'm not kidding, I did several comparisons.
> ...



Hi Gregory,

Once you get the hang of the simple Fisheye-Hemi, you can do a few advanced things with it to make the 15mm a true rectilinear with a very wide fov. Take a look at this how to for the best results I have seen from the awesome little 15mm.

http://www.lonelyspeck.com/defish/


----------



## Cheekysascha (Sep 22, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Cheekysascha said:
> 
> 
> > ......would it be worth getting the 14mm? is it a good and sharp lens? so far all the reviews I've read have been good but It's still almost 1900 pounds so I'm trying to see all the pros and cons of it.
> ...



Oh wow, didn't know that thanks for the info  I'll look more into the 11-24 now or even the 15mm fish eye, however right now I'm really leaning towards the 15mm zeiss prime


----------



## RGF (Sep 22, 2015)

Have the 11-24 and 14 and find I use the 14 more than the 11-24. Smaller size and F2.8 make this my goto lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 23, 2015)

Cheekysascha said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Cheekysascha said:
> ...



You might find this comparison interesting, at 16mm and f4 the 11-24 bests the Zeiss, for sharpness/resolution, but loses a touch in CA, though having the 11-24 I know CA is not generally an issue and one that I have so far always easily fixed in post if I need to.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=794&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=977&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

It seems unless you need the f2.8 the 11-24 really is the new top gun out there.


----------

