Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM

how the fu... can the charge 2200$ for such a "small" lens... Its "only" 2.8 - if it was 1.2 i could belive it but 2.2k for a 14 mm 2,8 lens... way to expensive for me... and belive what this is gonna cost here in denmark... i guess ~3000$ ... :S

2200 is the msrp, so it'll actually sell for lower than that (as long as you don't pre order on amazon or the life) but it's still gonna be quite high priced for a slow prime.

deadpass wrote in post #3759908
2200 is the msrp, so it'll actually sell for lower than that (as long as you don't pre order on amazon or the life) but it's still gonna be quite high priced for a slow prime.

Yeah, but still i don't see what makes it SO expensive... May be because they dont sell a lot of them, and its expensive to "draw" a new lens

Thats not slow for that focal length.

belmondo wrote in post #3759833
I didn't think I'd buy the 16-35L II, but I did.
I didn't think I'd buy the 1D MK III, but I did.
I didn't think I'd buy the 85L II, and I didn't.

There's hope for me yet.

Did you think you'd buy the 50 1.2L?

I would if I could. I wish they made a non-L for us po' folk.

Andy_T wrote in post #3759808
I'd hope so, if they did a 'complete optical redesign'.

Best regards,
Andy

I did a quick compare, the astig is slightly higher than the Mk I but the average of the M&S curves is much better at the edge and corner, specially stopped down. Stopped down it looks better than the 16-35 II @ 16mm. About a 100g heaver, I guess they must have increased the size of the front element which probably helps the edge performance.

I wish they would update the 20/2.8, they could really do with a good prime in that area (as long as it doesn't cost the earth like the 14mm).

Lord_Malone wrote in post #3759967
Did you think you'd buy the 50 1.2L?

Into every life some rain must fall.:p

gardengirl13 wrote in post #3759985
I would if I could. I wish they made a non-L for us po' folk.

Tamron has a 14mm f/2.8 for $1100 @ B&H. Currently there's a $100 rebate to knock that down to $999.

And Sigma has a 14/2.8 EX that sells for USD 899 at www.sigma4less.com.

Best regards,
Andy

Me...Me!!!

I'm interested in the new 14mm, as I was interested in the old one already... Glad I waited... But we'll have to see what the final street price is.

There's no question it's a good, solid prime that's sharp edge to edge and very wide. I just don't know that it is worth that kind of expense over the 16-35mm I already have - at the same aperture. If it was f/2.0 or brighter, then we'd really be talking. At least it's weathersealed...

Wonder when the Mark II versions of the other primes are coming?

^^ I wonder when the MKIII Ns are coming. (Couldn't resist)

One of the lenses I miss most when switch last year form Nikon was the 10.5- 2.8 fisheye, I wish Canon would come out with something in that range for us photogs who shoot with cropped censors, I doubt I would be getting a FF anytime soon since 98% of the shooting I do is sports, but that 10.5 did give different perspective in sports shots.

Double Negative wrote in post #3760393
I'm interested in the new 14mm, as I was interested in the old one already... Glad I waited... But we'll have to see what the final street price is.

There's no question it's a good, solid prime that's sharp edge to edge and very wide. I just don't know that it is worth that kind of expense over the 16-35mm I already have - at the same aperture. If it was f/2.0 or brighter, then we'd really be talking. At least it's weathersealed...

Wonder when the Mark II versions of the other primes are coming?

I hear you. I just sold the 16-35L I to help fund the 16-35L II, but would love to add the 14L to the line up as well. I tried the Sig 14 2.8, and it was okay, but the edges left much to be desired. I normally chalk that up as an inherent lens flaw and complexity of the design, but the finish on that lens has been known to flake off as well. I know, I know... it's a tool not a display piece, but I just like the better build of the L overall.