Newegg: EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM $2009.99

hortonsl62 wrote in post #4406914
I'm losing my ability to web surf! This is NOT good!

Thank you for the link!!

You're welcome.

The 14 L II is a marked improvement in the area of corner sharpness, but to be blatantly frank, I'd have a hard time counseling someone to stretch for the 14 L II rather than seek out an aggressive bargain on the original unless the issue of corner shapness happens to be absolutely paramount among all considerations.

The II has a much better lens cap design (though cheaper construction materials). Otherwise, it's hard to not enjoy either. Best of luck.

Elan Remford wrote in post #4408979
You're welcome.

The 14 L II is a marked improvement in the area of corner sharpness, but to be blatantly frank, I'd have a hard time counseling someone to stretch for the 14 L II rather than seek out an aggressive bargain on the original unless the issue of corner shapness happens to be absolutely paramount among all considerations.

The II has a much better lens cap design (though cheaper construction materials). Otherwise, it's hard to not enjoy either. Best of luck.

You seem to have some experience with the original. At what aperture would you say edge sharpness significantly improves if at all?

^^ Exactly -- I'm interested in whether or not the I cleans up at f/8, f/11, and beyond, and if it does clean up on a FF body.

It is tough to to online research to actually know that, and with the II so expensive, the question is whether or not the I will do!

You CAN DO it. If you don't like, sell it back to me.

I have the I, not the II version of this lens. Without pixel peeping, the results are stunning. I bought it from Elan here on this thread for 1400. While I originally had the 85L I and upgraded to the II because the focus was so slow on the I as to be unusable for my purposes, this lens seems a great bargain for me at the price. The newer version is just too expensive as far as I'm concerned.

And I've got the sigma 12-24; it too is a fantastic lens.

Oh, and Elan is among the top most reputable people I have ever dealt with.

mark

^^ So, compare the 12-24 to the L -- Is the L really that much better? (I expect so because it is a prime; but the undercurrent of my question is can I slide by making 36"+ shots from the Sigma?)

hortonsl62 wrote in post #4416718
^^ So, compare the 12-24 to the L -- Is the L really that much better? (I expect so because it is a prime; but the undercurrent of my question is can I slide by making 36"+ shots from the Sigma?)

I haven't used each enough yet to do a comparison. Sorry. Also, I don't tend toward pixel peeping. I just shoot, see what looks good when I get back home, and then print 16x20 or 16x24 on my Epson and hang them on my wall.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I'm not a very observant person and have little attention for detail.

I also don't really know how to test the two adequately.

What I can say is that the quality of the Canon speaks for itself, and by that I mean build quality.

As for the Sigma, it's the only non-Canon lens I've owned, and it was a pleasant surprise. Very well made, quick focus, and pouch/bag that Canon could take a lesson from. The only nit is the zoom ring is not as smooth as it could be.

mark

Honest, well-informed -- There's no way you're a politician! (Thank you)

This is £999 in the UK - which is not a bad price, considering it includes VAT - probably cheaper than the US, as I guess the above prices do not include state taxes (assuming they are purchased locally)

http://www.parkcameras​.com …tDetails/mcs/pr​oductID/62

MDJAK wrote in post #4416145
I have the I, not the II version of this lens. Without pixel peeping, the results are stunning. I bought it from Elan here on this thread for 1400. While I originally had the 85L I and upgraded to the II because the focus was so slow on the I as to be unusable for my purposes, this lens seems a great bargain for me at the price. The newer version is just too expensive as far as I'm concerned.

And I've got the sigma 12-24; it too is a fantastic lens.

Oh, and Elan is among the top most reputable people I have ever dealt with.

mark

So is the Sigma 12-24 IQ comparable or better than the 14L I? Mark, for the love of god, do us all a favor and set up a quick test and pixel peep! You've got some good tools at your disposal and you'd answer a lot of questions here.

tell me simply how to do a test. I've never done one before. I'll be happy to try. Maybe I'll try to figure something out.
Stay tuned.
me

Lord_Malone wrote in post #4419966
So is the Sigma 12-24 IQ comparable or better than the 14L I? .

i HAD 12-24 twice and sold both time before the 14L and i can tell you what you pay is what you get man.

I've always found the 12-24 to be excellent in every regard, and especially so considering what it manages to accomplish in combination with its rock-bottom price.

Mine has always been very sharp. It's not "prime sharp", but it's not a prime. The 14 L is more vivid and saturated, but that's not because the 12-24 isn't. Amazingly, the 12-24 leaves the 14 L (and just about every other rectilinear lens that even dares to come close to that neighborhood) in the dust when in managing distortion. There's so little as to be ridiculous, let alone for 12mm. And, in terms of comparing how wide a view each can grab, 14's wide, but 12's something else altogether. And sure, there are those who'd dismiss that significance by stitching together a panorama, but for that trouble, why not REALLY go stitching and use a 24 L that has very few known vices.

Maybe I've just been fortunate, but each of the 2 14 Ls I've owned have been very sharp. And while the corners always tended to improve down to f/8 or so, I've never considered either of them to be inherently "poor" as the reputation the 14 L seems to carry. In reality, I suspect it has always been judged more against its price rather than inherent performance, but YMMV.

Is the 14 L II improved? Yes. Appreciably? I suppose when wide open. Is it worth the price difference? Sure, if you've got the cash and have a proclivity for showing off sharp corners wide open. Otherwise, I've found the character and quality of the images between the two 14 L versions to be very similar.

As for the 12-24, there have been reports of QC variances, but the one I own and the two I used before buying mine were all similarly excellent. Focusing at such wide angles when shooting to emphasize perspective is finicky by nature, so maybe that accounts for a lot of what gets passed on to the 12-24 in the form of a bad rep. I dunno. I've always been very pleased with mine, as I've always been with the 14 Ls I've owned. Again, YMMV.

MDJAK wrote in post #4420047
tell me simply how to do a test. I've never done one before. I'll be happy to try. Maybe I'll try to figure something out.
Stay tuned.
me

Throw that body on a good sturdy tripod, enable MLU, use a remote shutter release, engage the eyepiece shutter to avoid stray light creeping in, and shoot both lenses at 14mm from 2.8 > down at a variety of static subjects with varying contrast. Or download a lens test chart or shoot a brick wall... use your imagination, Marky Mark.

Bubble wrote in post #4422264
i HAD 12-24 twice and sold both time before the 14L and i can tell you what you pay is what you get man.

I hear you, man. As much as I have a hard on for the 14L II, I'm just going to wait a bit before buying one. I've got to settle some debt and I'm in the process of moving (again). However, this lens is definitely in cards. Price be damned, I'm getting one sooner or later.

Elan Remford wrote in post #4423016
I've always found the 12-24 to be excellent in every regard, and especially so considering what it manages to accomplish in combination with its rock-bottom price.

Mine has always been very sharp. It's not "prime sharp", but it's not a prime. The 14 L is more vivid and saturated, but that's not because the 12-24 isn't. Amazingly, the 12-24 leaves the 14 L (and just about every other rectilinear lens that even dares to come close to that neighborhood) in the dust when in managing distortion. There's so little as to be ridiculous, let alone for 12mm. And, in terms of comparing how wide a view each can grab, 14's wide, but 12's something else altogether. And sure, there are those who'd dismiss that significance by stitching together a panorama, but for that trouble, why not REALLY go stitching and use a 24 L that has very few known vices.

Maybe I've just been fortunate, but each of the 2 14 Ls I've owned have been very sharp. And while the corners always tended to improve down to f/8 or so, I've never considered either of them to be inherently "poor" as the reputation the 14 L seems to carry. In reality, I suspect it has always been judged more against its price rather than inherent performance, but YMMV.

Is the 14 L II improved? Yes. Appreciably? I suppose when wide open. Is it worth the price difference? Sure, if you've got the cash and have a proclivity for showing off sharp corners wide open. Otherwise, I've found the character and quality of the images between the two 14 L versions to be very similar.

As for the 12-24, there have been reports of QC variances, but the one I own and the two I used before buying mine were all similarly excellent. Focusing at such wide angles when shooting to emphasize perspective is finicky by nature, so maybe that accounts for a lot of what gets passed on to the 12-24 in the form of a bad rep. I dunno. I've always been very pleased with mine, as I've always been with the 14 Ls I've owned. Again, YMMV.

Thanks for sharing that honest assessment, Elan. If I'm ever in Jersey you'll have to let me try out that Sigma of yours.