14mm II Crops

Saw on FM these have been posted.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The 14 mkII does not fare well vs. the 16-35II wide open. The sharpness is noticibly better for the zoom. As you stop both down the prime catches up but then seems to lose contrast.

Eventhough the 14 mkII is an improvement over the mkI, I still think few will be able to justify the price given the less than perfect performance. I guess some will say they need that extra 2mm of width....

It seems the 14 looses contrast, but to its side. The corners are a lot sharper than the 16. Althought the 14 looses crontrast (a lot) after f8. The 16 seems to have lots of CA where as the 14 is clean as a whistle.

This is a niche ( did I said niche!) lens no doubts...

silvex wrote in post #4217867
It seems the 14 looses contrast, but to its side. The corners are a lot sharper than the 16. Althought the 14 looses crontrast (a lot) after f8. The 16 seems to have lots of CA where as the 14 is clean as a whistle.

I agree with you on edge sharpness, a small advantage is present for the prime (but not as great a sharpness advantage as the zoom has over the prime in center frame). I think both lenses show CA at the edges. The prime does have significantly less than the zoom, however.

That's somewhat disappointing. I had high hopes for this lens... Will keep a close eye on more reviews. Still too early to tell, IMO.

Sadly, it'd be cheaper to upgrade my 16-35mm Mk I to a Mk II, and from these early reports, sounds like it may be the better IQ choice.

Okay, stop pixel peeping. I rented the original 14mm for a week's vacation in Washington. It did NOT disappoint. I loved it.

mark

mebailey wrote in post #4217824
The sharpness is noticibly better for the zoom

The FoV is notably wider on the prime.
Go out and shoot