Canon 14mm 2.8 L

Am wondering about this lens.

As posted earlier, I'm taking a trip to UK in the Summer and need a wing angle for London and landscapes.

Would this do it?

Also, it has a rear filter. I've never had a lens with one. Is it hard to use and are there several manufacturers of the actual filters or is this a Canon-only issue?

Thanks for all your help!

Ole Joe

It's a good wide-angle for a 20D. It takes a gelatin filter (thin sheet of coloured gelatin or plastic which is cut to fit the holder). Gelatin filters have been around for longer than glass ones; they're widely available, either as photo filters (3" or 4" square) or as theatrical lighting gels,which can be in quite large sheets. Mind you,your local Ritz won't be able to sell you one, but most quality camera stores will stock the commonest ones and be able to get the less-frequently-used ones.

Thanks, Jon, for taking the time to respond.

Not sure if I'm going to pull the trigger or not, but it's good to know that the filters are available from other manufacturers.

Ole Joe

Just a thought: use the money for 14mm to trade your 20D to 5D and you'll get virtually same FOV with your 24-70, and most likely with better quality.

YES! What Pekka said, or get a 10-22...

SOunds reasonable, considering the cost of the 14 that becomes a 22.4 seems much a better choice getting a 5D. The quality is absolutely superb.

Of course then you will need a 100mm lens for the 5D.

Yeah, but the 100's cheap compared to the 14. And that still has him only needing 2 lenses, plus the discontinuity is at the tele end, where it's less messy, rather than at the wide end.

If he decides that landscape is more his thing, then he should switch his 20D for a 5D. But the 5fps on the 20D is a killer!!!

I just bought the 10-22 and am really loving it. I know it is not compatible with non-crop bodies, which was one thing that made me heistate for so long, but it really is a great lens.

Guys,

That's an interesting thought, as it had not crossed my mind.

I'll think about that one.

Hmmmmmm.

Ole Joe

I'll second that..........the 10-22mm lens is outstanding!!!!

I love the 10-22mm, just not sure that lens would be a must have lens for one trip. It's a very extreme lens, I find it most useful for tight spaces as aposed to landscapes. You need to be relatively close to the landscapes to use this lens with any detail IMO.

The 16-35mm f2.8 would be on my list, one of the 3 best zooms you could own IMO. It would give you the same speed, and greatly increase the wide angle view for from what the 24-70L has now.

I tend to think 5D prices will drop a bit in the future, likely not before your trip. Just thought I'd add another silly choice.

Even Ken Rockwell, the Nikon lover, thinks that lens is the best. http://www.kenrockwell​.com/canon/1022.htm

jjonsalt wrote:
Even Ken Rockwell, the Nikon lover, thinks that lens is the best. http://www.kenrockwell​.com/canon/1022.htm

Every review I have ever seen about this lens states it is the best thing since sliced bread for the ultra wide APS-C frame. It takes amazing shots, I'm very glad I sprang for the 10-22mm Canon instead of the 3rd party lens. I had to sell my film body to finance this lens, no regrets the pictures are wonder.

I wish all Canon non-L's could be this light and this good.