Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ Lens Test Report: Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 USM L II
#1
http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_f...14f28mk2ff



Very good ... but is it really a better choice compared to the el-cheapo Samyang ?
#2
14l II vs Samyang? AF and EF vs MF and non-automatic aperture? For me the 14L II would win, although I could be convinced to get a Samyang for curiosity 's sake <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />. I would be very interested in seeing the rendering differences, however, so I better check out the posted pics <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Thanks for the review, Klaus!



Kindest regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#3
Looking at current UK prices, the Canon is 6x the cost of the Samyang. It's better, but that is a tough value trade off. It's not a focal length I'm too interested in right now, but I think the distortion of the Samyang would be a deal breaker, and the price of the Canon likewise. Then again, unless I go FF again it isn't something I have to think about <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



If I want wide angle distortion, I already have the 8mm fisheye <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#4
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1281986812' post='1819']

Very good ... but is it really a better choice compared to the el-cheapo Samyang ? [/quote]



Not as I see it. If I was after that kind of lens I'd buy the Samyang, correct the distortion in PP and live with the MF. I do like AF on every lens (even on UWA and macro I used it extensively) but at this kind of price difference I'd happily live without it.
#5
I am quite surprised by the results. Was expecting the optical quality to be a total disaster as compared to the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 @ 14 mm. But hey, hey... it's just as good with much less distortion.



So, I guess this either means Klauss got lucky and ended up with a good copy of the 14 f/2.8 lens, or other reviewers who showed 'atrocious' optical performance from the 14 f/2.8 Mk2 lens were just plain unlucky or highly biased. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />
#6
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1282053499' post='1841']

I am quite surprised by the results. Was expecting the optical quality to be a total disaster as compared to the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 @ 14 mm. But hey, hey... it's just as good with much less distortion.



So, I guess this either means Klauss got lucky and ended up with a good copy of the 14 f/2.8 lens, or other reviewers who showed 'atrocious' optical performance from the 14 f/2.8 Mk2 lens were just plain unlucky or highly biased. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />

[/quote]



Actually the sample wasn't even perfect.
#7
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1282051204' post='1840']

Not as I see it. If I was after that kind of lens I'd buy the Samyang, correct the distortion in PP and live with the MF. I do like AF on every lens (even on UWA and macro I used it extensively) but at this kind of price difference I'd happily live without it.

[/quote]



Actually, with distortion correction having come more and more places, and the huge DOF of such a wide angle, those two points are really not that problematic. I'd go for Samyang unless I could point at a very specific reason why not.



-Lars
#8
[quote name='larsrc' timestamp='1282132349' post='1863']

Actually, with distortion correction having come more and more places, and the huge DOF of such a wide angle, those two points are really not that problematic. I'd go for Samyang unless I could point at a very specific reason why not.



-Lars

[/quote]

Well, what about doing 24"x 36" prints after correction - the corners will be a lot less good due to the correction for barrel distortion <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />. Much less of a problem with the Canon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#9
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1282133048' post='1865']

Well, what about doing 24"x 36" prints after correction - the corners will be a lot less good due to the correction for barrel distortion <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />. Much less of a problem with the Canon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />

[/quote]



Yes, but the Canon is less sharp to start with. Technically there's no reason in favor of the Canon I think.

Well, it's smaller if that counts maybe.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)