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!
Specifications
(compared with similar lenses from Sigma and
Nikon)
|
|
|
Canon 14mm f/2.8 USM II
|
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 USM II
|
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6
|
Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S
|
|
Focal length
|
14 mm
|
16-35 mm
|
12-24 mm
|
14-24 mm
|
|
Macro ratio
|
0.15x
|
0.22x
|
0.25x
|
0.15x
|
|
Max Aperture
|
f/2.8
|
f/2.8
|
f/4.5-5.6
|
f/2.8
|
|
Stabilization
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Autofocus
|
Ultrasonic AF Motor
|
Ultrasonic AF Motor
|
Ultrasonic AF Motor
|
Ultrasonic AF Motor
|
|
Closest Focus
|
0.20 meters
|
0.28 meters
|
0.29 meters
|
0.28 meters
|
|
Dimensions
|
80 x 94 mm
|
88 x 116 mm
|
87 x 100 mm
|
98 x 130 mm
|
|
Weight
|
645 g
|
640 g
|
615 g
|
1000 g
|
|
Weather sealing
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
|
Price
|
$ 2100
|
$ 1500
|
$ 860
|
$ 1800
|
|
Production
|
2007-
|
2007-
|
2003-
|
2007-
|
|
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 the 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).
|
|
Canon 14mm f/2.8 L USM II (center) |
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 at 14mm (center) |
|
f/2.8 |
 |
not available (the max
aperture is f/5.0) |
|
f/5.6 |
 |
 |
|
f/16 |
 |
 |
|
In the center, there is not any visible
difference between the Canon and the Sigma.
|
|
Canon 14mm f/2.8 L USM II (corner) |
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 at 14mm (corner) |
|
f/2.8 |
 |
not available (the max
aperture is f/5.0) |
|
f/5.6 |
 |
 |
|
f/16 |
 |
 |
|
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)
|
|
Canon 14mm f/2.8 L USM II (center) |
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM II at 16mm (center) |
|
f/2.8 |
|
 |
|
f/5.6 |
|
 |
|
f/16 |
|
 |
|
In the center, the Canon 16-35 is
slightly better, in particular at f/2.8.
|
|
Canon 14mm f/2.8 L USM II (corner) |
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM II at 16mm (corner) |
|
f/2.8 |
|
 |
|
f/5.6 |
|
 |
|
f/16 |
|
 |
|
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.
Do you have
comments or questions?
If you have comments or questions about
this article, feel free to ask in the
Juza
Nature Photography Discussion Forum!
|
|
