The Final Frontier: 14L

I know some a few of yous, but not many, have that 14L lens(e) in your collection. That should really be the last lens in my collection (for the time being) if I ever see sufficient reasonable evidence of that lens' IQ, and then plonk my money on it. However, I am still quite distant from buying the darn lens because nothing I have seen on Pbase convinces me to go in that direction......people showcase mostly distant and oveshopped scapes that could have been shot with the EF-S kit lens.

So lads, do not be chickens, show me yer goods, give me some reason to consider the lens acquisition.....that is, a reason going beyond merely giving Dante and Bearsummer continuing indigestion upon sighting my humble collection.

You've got PM.

I have considered this lens, but now is not a good time for me to buy it.

Tom W wrote in post #2247411
You've got PM.

I have considered this lens, but now is not a good time for me to buy it.

Thank you Tommy.

Pet-Kal wrote in post #2247281
I know some a few of yous, but not many, have that 14L lens(e) in your collection. That should really be the last lens in my collection (for the time being) if I ever see sufficient reasonable evidence of that lens' IQ, and then plonk my money on it. However, I am still quite distant from buying the darn lens because nothing I have seen on Pbase convinces me to go in that direction......people showcase mostly distant and oveshopped scapes that could have been shot with the EF-S kit lens.

So lads, do not be chickens, show me yer goods, give me some reason to consider the lens acquisition.....that is, a reason going beyond merely giving Dante and Bearsummer continuing indigestion upon sighting my humble collection.

I thought it was your wifes hard earned money you were wasting... oh well here you go, no PP straight from the RAW, focus point was center of image

14mm 2.8 resized
14mm 2.8 lower right
14mm 2.8 top left
14mm 2.8 center

14mm 2.8 resize
14mm 2.8 lower right
14mm 2.8 center

14mm 8.0 resize
14mm 8.0 lower right
14mm 8.0 center

BearSummer

Looks thoroughly displeasing to me. Hey, if you need 14mm, you need it.

If you are interested

14 2.8 mtf

regards

BearSummer

BearSummer wrote in post #2247648
I thought it was your wifes hard earned money you were wasting... oh well here you go, no PP straight from the RAW, focus point was center of image

14mm 2.8 resized
14mm 2.8 lower right
14mm 2.8 top left
14mm 2.8 center

14mm 2.8 resize
14mm 2.8 lower right
14mm 2.8 center

14mm 8.0 resize
14mm 8.0 lower right
14mm 8.0 center

BearSummer

Thank you very much, Bear....you have always been a good sport. The corner crops are appreciated in particular. I like the colours and perspective that the lens yields on that image. However, as you know, it is very difficult to judge sharpness on an image taken with such a wide lens, so I am unable to comment in that regard.

PetKal wrote in post #2252815
Thank you very much, Bear....you have always been a good sport. The corner crops are appreciated in particular. I like the colours and perspective that the lens yields on that image. However, as you know, it is very difficult to judge sharpness on an image taken with such a wide lens, so I am unable to comment in that regard.

Glad that I was able to help

all the best

BearSummer

One of the few Canon L lenses I don't want. But as Ronald said, if you need 14mm...

If it's only for the occasional shot get Sigma's version instead, or even better the Sigma 12-24.

In summary, the only path forward in my eyes here would be suck and see.
The lens has a rather unique standing in that it is quite pricey as well as extreme in its application, thus it is not commonly owned. Consequently, the lens users' feedback has a high degree of randomness. For example there is only a paltry 1/2 dozen reviews on the FM Reviews Board. Therefore statistically speaking, the rating of <7 the lens has received there has a very low confidence level in my mind.

However, I have got a very positive feedback on the lens from a couple of very accomplished photographers who use the lens (no, not Conduck....I do not think he owns that lens yet.) Typically, most lukewarm/sceptical reviews seem to be purveyed by folks who do not own the lens.

I'd readily buy the argument that the 14L is the best rectilinear EF game in town at 14mm or wider. The question which is hard to answer generally without "taking a suck" is how good is that "best" ? Good enough for $1,800 ?
As Tom W and I were talking on separate occasions....how important are those 2 mm FL to the folks who already own an excellent copy of the 16-35 ?

(Removed... wrong lens review)

I wanted the focal length, but $1800 is a lot for such a niche lens unless you do a lot of interiors (real estate work?) or such. I tried the Tamron and got one used from KEH for around $750. The Tamron has served me well, and left me with enough to get, say, the 24-70 L with the difference.

Have Fun,

CoolToolGuy wrote in post #2253854
I wanted the focal length, but $1800 is a lot for such a niche lens unless you do a lot of interiors (real estate work?) or such. I tried the Tamron and got one used from KEH for around $750. The Tamron has served me well, and left me with enough to get, say, the 24-70 L with the difference.

Have Fun,

True enough Rickmaster, but you know what they say in antebellum San Anselmo, Ca.: "NobLesse obLige".
I feel a true coLLector is somehow unfulfilled if the absence of the convex chubby in their kit.

EOS-1Ds, ISO 320, 1/60s, f/13:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

cwphoto wrote in post #2254053
EOS-1Ds, ISO 320, 1/60s, f/13:

That's very nice, CW, I like the look of that handtowel as well as the colours....as far as the web-sized image can convey.
Thanx.