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

Lord_Malone,

you can always rent the sigma 12-24 and 14L to try out. That way, you can find out which one is better for your shooting style.

btw, join the dark side with me. I'm extremely happy with this lens now.

Bubble wrote in post #4424895
Lord_Malone,

you can always rent the sigma 12-24 and 14L to try out. That way, you can find out which one is better for your shooting style.

btw, join the dark side with me. I'm extremely happy with this lens now.

Hmmm... the dark side. Nikon has some very nice offerings on the table. I'll think about it.

Don't do it!

You'll become covered in warts and smell like cabbage!

NickSimcheck wrote in post #4427418
Don't do it!

You'll become covered in warts and smell like cabbage!

Well if that's the case I'm jumping ship for sure!

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.

Bruder Mark, the above is one of the best examples for a "non-sequitur" I've chanced upon today. Hard to tell which lens(e) you opine on, the 85L or the 14L. Either way, your continuing perpetuation of the notion that the 85L MkII AF speed is significantly higher than that of the MkI (still talking 85L) is starting to weigh heavy on my nerves.

LOL, Pet(e).

And let me put your suspicions to rest, the 85 L II's AF DOES focus significantly faster in most situations than the original. Now granted, that's a bit like turbocharging a Trabant, but the difference (especially in efficacy afield) is substantial. (So is what the 85 L II's curved aperture blades does for spot light sources, by the way.) Otherwise, all of the 85 L's other magical goodness is still all there.

The 85 L II still does use that funky "power assisted steering"/"fly-by-wire" flavor of USM though.

Elan Remford wrote in post #4427830
And let me put your suspicions to rest, the 85 L II's AF DOES focus significantly faster in most situations than the original.

Et tu, Brute !

Well, Elan, to change this subject in which you and MD (LU)DJAK seem to be trabanting around each other......while staying within the Marketwatch forum framework:
Are you getting ready with your white "chubby" sales presentation ?

PetKal wrote in post #4427895
Et tu, Brute !

you and MD (LU)DJAK seem to be trabanting around each other......

Here, for the largely Amero-centric audience, this is the intellectual vehicle in which our friends MD (LU)DJAK and Remfjord are travelling in their AF speed "kozmos". The picture shows a rather late, much improved model.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

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.

Thank you, very helpful!

Are you shooting FF?

In stock

http://www.newegg.com …aspx?Item=N82E1​6830998144

and now they are giving you free 3-day air.

Palladium wrote in post #4459403
In stock

http://www.newegg.com …aspx?Item=N82E1​6830998144

Thanks, brother. I already pulled the trigger. Free shipping and all.

Hopefully it'll be in my hands early next week.

Posted my initial impressions here...

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …owproduct.php?p​roduct=334

Man, I love this lens.

Lord_Malone wrote in post #4495616
Man, I love this lens.

Yeah, but it's still no EF 50 f/1.0 L USM.

Elan Remford wrote in post #4495714
Yeah, but it's still no EF 50 f/1.0 L USM.

Man, you ain't right.