Canon 14mm f/2.8 L USM II (vs Sigma 12-24mm and Canon 16-35)

 

If you want to go wildly wide, the Canon 14mm is the one of the widest lenses you can get. The only wider lenses are the fisheyes and the Sigma 12-24, my current wide-angle workhorse. 14mm, wide aperture, "L" built quality...it sounds awesome, but is it good enough to part with 2100 of your hardly earned dollars? Let's see how it compares with the versatile Canon 16-35mm zoom and with the mighty Sigma 12-24!  
 
Many thanks to my friend Sandro who loaned me this lens!  
 
As usual, I recommend to give a look to the page Testing and reviewing a lens: it will help you to understand better this review and my testing methodology!
 
 

Specifications (compared with similar lenses from Sigma and Nikon)

 
 

Built quality and autofocus

A fixed focal, weather sealed L lens: it is difficult to find something that has a better built quality. The Canon 14mm f/2.8 feels like a rock; it is heavy, but it is surprisingly small...I expected to see a big bulky lens as the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8, instead the Canon 14mm is even smaller than my Sigma 12-24mm. The Sigma is well built, too, but the Canon is simply on another level.  
 
The lens barrel has a nice black finish that, unlike the Sigma EX finish, does not scratch easily. You can focus manually using the large rubber ring, or you can set the small AF/MF switch on AF to use the fast ultrasonic autofocus. In terms of AF, the Canon 14mm, 16-35mm and the Sigma are about on par, they have ultrasonic motor so AF is great; only in low light the Canon shows some advantage, thanks to its brighter aperture.  
 
The Canon 14mm is weather sealed: even though it is not a warranty - even my weather sealed 1DsIII has failed under very heavy rain - it surely helps; the lack of weather sealing in the Sigma is generally not a big problem, but in some difficult situations the lens has got so wet to be unusable.  
 
Both Canon 14mm, Sigma and Nikkor have fixed lens hood and they can not use filters; none of them, instead, has image stabilization. If you are one of those who say that stabilization in wide angles is useless, go immediately to take an handheld photo at 1/2" with your non-stabilized wide angle ;-) If instead you are looking for a wide-angle with IS, like me, the good news is that Nikon is moving in this direction with the new 16-35mm f/4 VR; let's hope Canon will follow, even though I don't expect to see a Canon wide with IS soon (the 14mm, 24mm, 16-35mm are all recent lenses).

 

 
 

Image quality (in comparison with Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6)

I have tested the lenses on my Canon 1DsIII (21 megapixel, fullframe). The lenses were mounted on tripod; I have used mirror lock up and self timer. The following images are 100% crop from the unprocessed RAW file. The test subject was a big library (about 4.5x3 meters).

In the center, there is not any visible difference between the Canon and the Sigma.  
 

In the corners, the Canon is soft at f/2.8, but it gets much better stopping down. The Sigma is worse than the Canon both at f/5.6 and f/16, and it does not show improvements even by stopping down. That said, I think that my current copy of Sigma 12-24 is not the best - my previous copy, that I sadly dropped on the rocks last year, was much sharper in the corners.  
 
Surprisingly, the Sigma shows no chromatic aberration, while the Canon has a bit of CA, even though it is minimal and it can be easily removed.
 
 

Image quality (in comparison with Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM)

In the center, the Canon 16-35 is slightly better, in particular at f/2.8.  
 

In the corner, the 16-35 is clearly better at f/2.8. At f/5.6, they are about on par (the 14mm may be a little sharper); at f/16 there are no visible differences.
 
 

Samples and comments

These are some sample photos taken with the Canon 14mm f/2.8 L USM II on Canon 1DsIII. You can download either the untouched photo (JPEG converted from RAW without any additional post processing; minimum contrast and saturation, no sharpening, no AC, distortion or vignetting correction) or the post processed version. The untouched photo is a good way to see the real image quality of the lens, and the post processed versions allow to see the final quality you can get with good post processing techniques.

The 14mm has very good image quality when stopped down; wide open, instead, the corners are not very sharp. Vignetting and distortion are never a problem; chromatic aberration is well controlled.
 
 

Conclusions

Honestly, I don't like the Canon 14mm. Yes, the image quality is good if you stop down a little, but at f/2.8 the corners are soft - and this is not a cheap lens! From a $2100 prime lens I expected much better results, in particular if you consider that Nikon offers a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens that is razor sharp from corner to corner even at f/2.8, and it is even a zoom!!! (I have tried the Nikkor but I have not done yet a direct comparison...I'll try to do it as soon as possible. In the meantime, you can give a look to the comparison on 16-9.net).  
 
In conclusion, I would not buy this lens. If you want a great 14mm and you can live without AF, I'd recommend to get the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 with the Nikkor G - Canon EF adapter; otherwise, if you want a Canon lens, I'd go for the much cheaper Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM II, that is more versatile and it has even a slightly better image quality, in particular wide open.  
 
The Sigma 12-24 is a very interesting alternative; it is three times cheaper, it is more versatile and it can get much wider. It is not very bright, but for landscapes it is not a problem, unless you plan to use it for night photography. Its main downside is sample variation - if you get a good copy the image quality can be on par or very close to the expensive Canon wide-angles, while if you get a so-so copy, the image quality can be disappointing.