| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
|
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
  | sent on 21 Luglio 2024 Pros: Build quality, weight, sharpness even at TA Cons: None of relevance. It's an ultra-wide angle and you have to learn how to use it Opinion: Gift from my wife for her birthday. Found used at RCE in perfect condition. I did some tests both indoors and outdoors. I was looking for wide-angle lenses and prefer to use prime lenses. The quality seemed to me from the first photograph taken at 2.8 at home very good. I was surprised by the distortion control that in the 16-35 II used in the past was much worse. The weight and obviously the build quality are good. It is important to take into account the flare that often occurs when bright lights enter the field. In general, I am very satisfied with this perspective |
 | sent on 20 Giugno 2024 Pros: Relative compactness (compared to its direct competitors), usability of the corners even at f/2.8 incomparable to all the compatibles tested to date Cons: I'll update the review if any come up in use Opinion: After trying four third-party competitors I had no alternative, I "risked" it (this time without the possibility of return) and it seems that this time we are there! Found used in excellent condition, indistinguishable from new, arrived in two days and immediately put on the "test bench", which is the garden of the house, where all the others had immediately shown their limits. I have to say that this time the result was amazing... Even at 2.8 the angles are perfectly usable although, of course, not perfect. To give an example, I found the same level of acceptability on the corners of the Canon at 2.8 aperture that I had found on the Samyang AF f/2.8 shooting at 8 aperture! Same difference with the Yongnuo AF f/2.8. Let's leave aside the comparison with the Sigma 14mm f/2.8, which is completely unacceptable. Obviously, everything is related to the amount spent, which was practically about a quarter of the new price at the release of the lens, while for the Koreans the price of the used was about 60% of the cost of the new one. In my opinion, there is no comparison. Obviously, this is only a first test of a few shots, but the same was also for the others tried previously, tests that were enough for me to decree the immediate return. Then, for heaven's sake, reading everything and more about this goal, well... it's certainly not perfection personified, but I think for this focal length it's still the best choice available today for Canon EF. I reserve the right to give a grade only after having effectively tested it "in the field". |
  | sent on 08 Dicembre 2021 Pros: Construction, portability, optical quality, AF Cons: Flare, but with that glass it's normal Opinion: Purchased used by RCE two months ago: a disaster! Low sharpness, little detail, corners kneaded even with intermediate diaphragms .....sent back for a Sigma 12-24. Here things have changed, but I have not been fully convinced: too sharp, little vivid colors, little or no distortion (which is sometimes sought in a super wide angle) and then an "impossible" weight for these optics. Here, this was perhaps the problem, I was looking for a super wide angle, not a zoom, so I tried again with the Canon 14 mm and I bought another copy (always from RCE), this time much more recent, and everything turned upside down! Spectacular in everything, sharp to the edges, beautiful colors that hold the comparison with my Zeiss, very acceptable weight and content, vignetting and flare in line with the focal length, lightning AF .....in short, what I was looking for in the wide angle I found in this copy and I dispelled the highly negative comments that circulate even if the doubt remains: have I stumbled upon a defective product (the first) or an unrepeatable stroke of luck (the second)? Maybe Canon has adjusted over the years the initial criticalities, the consequence however is that I gave up the Canon 16-35 f / 2.8 II and next to the 14mm to the 18mm and 21mm Zeiss without any doubt! |
 | sent on 25 Ottobre 2021 Pros: Impeccable construction, compactness, sharpness Cons: In my opinion none Opinion: An important lens that gave me beautiful shots of landscape and astrophotography. The onerous economic commitment has been amply repaid by this lens that has never betrayed my expectations. I separated from it because recently I am devoting myself exclusively to nature photography and I no longer do other genres. For the rest nothing else to add... indeed yes, aesthetically it is beautiful with its front lens and fixed hood. I part with regret. |
 | sent on 12 Luglio 2019 Pros: Construction, size, brightness, AF, sharpness, colors Cons: For the moment nothing, perhaps a poor resistance to the flare that requires some extra attention Opinion: I took this lens a few days so it can not be completely complete nor definitive this review, but I wanted to say some things right away. It's the first time I've seen the faces of sharp people with a 14mm even at TA. The mystery of diametrically opposed judgments on some Canon products continues, I would easily understand the small differences between one judgment and another but the abyss that there is between "wonderful" and "cyofeca" just can't understand it. I have not taken pictures of stars or others that are normally done with these focal points, I have taken some shots of those I always do and behaves very well, several spans above various Samyang or Sigma that I had in the past and with size and weight decidedly contained p er an f2.8, we'll see further on if something terrifying comes out. Update: after some time nothing terrible has happened so I confirm the first impression that it is an extraordinary 14mm. |
 | sent on 24 Giugno 2019 Pros: Constructive mechanics Cons: Everything else Opinion: I had in practice for a weekend by my trusted shopkeeper this lens (I wanted to replace my Voigtlander 15 with ring for practicality and for autofocus) I was deeply disappointed, very soft up to f8 and with a value for money unacceptable, I didn't even like the lower colors definitely at 16-35 f4. Returned |
user160348
 | sent on 17 Aprile 2019 Pros: All. Cons: Nothing except having to buy a dedicated holder to use the slab filters from 150, but incidentally it is a 14. Opinion: I had to test this beautiful lens for about a month, I promised myself to buy it as soon as possible, excellent sharpness already at full aperture, L-series construction, distortion where are you? Compact and light, the AF is very fast and precise, in the photos of Interiors excels, in short, for me it will become part of my professional kit very soon. I wonder if anyone who wrote catastrophic judgments on this lens, knows what he's talking about, I reckon not. |
  | sent on 01 Agosto 2018 Pros: Only the mechanics of a series "L" for the price to which it is proposed. Cons: High amount of CA at the edges; The protrusion of the lens, compared to competitors, is more prone to carry with if ghosting; From F 8 We can have a sufficient sharpness even at the edges. Opinion: I was looking for, and given the test done in the field, not satisfactory, I still try a fixed L series of canon; Thanks to a very dear friend who lent me a weekend to test its validity I decided to move on. As the possessor of the excellent Tokina 11-16 F 2.8 Fixed on the entire focal length, I can certainly affirm that it remains more competitive in terms of overall yield, while being a zoom and costing only 1/4 of the Canon 14mm. Test done on the field also with the Canon 8-15 F4, it remains more performing on the whole focal length and above all with greater homogeneity, having also, for those who look for it, a very funny and captivating perspective for certain particular conditions of shooting. Here the price of the lens remains absolutely unfeasible compared to the overall performance, both because L series and because of fixed optics! If in the production following the first step of 2007 have brought some improvement, you should try the goodness of the last pieces produced to have a certain term and final comparison. |
 | sent on 31 Luglio 2018 Pros: Wants to know them Cons: All Opinion: I wonder about the Canon engineers when they designed this lens what they had in mind. It is less sharp than the Samyang 14mm f/2.8, along the edges pulls out hallucinating chromatic aberrations (which do not disappear by closing the diaphragm), the sharpness at TA is tremendous in the peripheral area such as to render it unusable for nighttime photos. Ok is reasonably sharp in the center, but what do I do with a 14mm with a uniform sharpness exclusively at F11 (online graphics Videsi)? By the way all this for €2,350 official Canon price. The only "value" is the autofocus, but that at this focal length leaves the time it finds. I wonder the people who wrote the other enthusiastic reviews how many degrees of myopia missing has, because objectively it is a lens that does not deserve even 3 \ \ 10, and the value for money is the worst that can be found in a goal. The only positive note is the lack of distortion, especially when compared to Samyang. Pity that then with a click the distortion of the latter disappears, and the only thing that remains from the comparison is the deep bitterness for having thrown €2000. Compare it for example to a Zeiss Batis 18mm f/2.8, and you'll understand how pitiful this comparison is, all considering the price of the batis of not even €1300. NB: I had both lenses, I tested them next to each other, and I have seen with my bitterness all that. But if you don't believe me there is a thorough online review that will clarify all your ideas. |
 | sent on 03 Marzo 2018 Pros: Robustness and sharpness on my own already af 2.8. Absence of distortion also used full-frame, focus fulinea Cons: Nobody except the price Opinion: From my experience is irreplaceable in the landscapes pushed, example New York there 'everything and does not distort, like other lenses, in short for me to advise, of course if one can afford vignetting almost non-existent 2.8 disappears altogether at 4 can you put all as I said without distortion in urban landscapes, metropolis, etc., you can also put Grand ziro in it |
 | sent on 19 Marzo 2017 Pros: stratospheric sharpness, rnrobustezza, pro Cons: anything Opinion: I have this perspective for more du two years and I must say it has an amazing clarity of f.4 e'impressionate, I use it on my faithful DSIII, rne I must say that I would not change with no wide-angle Canon optical except with the 11 / 24, rnsi zooms are comodirncoemil 16/35 f.4, but does not take the comparison with the 14, and 'a fixed lens and then has all those chernuna fixed lens strengths can dare.rnnon cartoon, disarming clarity and flare almost absent, rnottica Highly recommended to those who like the super grandangolari.rnvoto 10 with lodern |
 | sent on 01 Marzo 2017 Pros: Firmness, clarity, construction, af fast Cons: I find none Opinion: I tried several wide-angle, but as sharp as I think this is hard to find. Speaking of this magnitude. Before buying it I was lucky enough to try it. A 2.8 and 'already clear though and' a focus that I will never use, because I do landscapes, I've heard of all colors of this lens, but from what turns out I highly recommend it |
 | sent on 10 Febbraio 2016 Pros: firmness, clarity, construction, speed of use (AF) Cons: Nobody Opinion: I have read many negative opinions about this lens ... including pure review of juzza landlord who even raises, lower than the canon 16-35 ... this is not my experience ... Many negative aspects were addressed the list price of 2300 Euros, but now is a much cheaper price and then everything takes on another aspect ... is a lens from disarming sharpness, compared to the previous version there have been significant advances especially from the point of view of and the sharpness of the ac correction. I think the only real rival is the Canon TS-17 and 15 and Zeiss, which, although slightly higher for the optical quality pay both the fact of not being af ... I find this the best fisheye lens available for Canon, its reduced size also make it a companion that always finds space in your bag ... |
 | sent on 22 Agosto 2014 Pros: Robust construction, high level of optical performance .. Cons: The price !!!!!!! I svenai to lay hold on him, damn !! Opinion: I use it for about a year now and I'm glad. Paradoxically, would remove the AF, I use it often in MF, indeed exploiting the hyperfocal. Ben did well to clear my uses I would not change it with the 17-40 it with 16-35f2,8 II from Canon. Given the 14 Nikkor, I prefer my Canon ... I read on the net here and negative opinions, I do not know why, maybe it also depends on what you expect from a piece from 2000, and euro switch .... |
 | sent on 14 Aprile 2013 Pros: Excellent sharpness already 'full aperture, flare, distortion and vignetting is well controlled, fairly small size and weight Cons: The price, AC a bit 'high but perfectly manageable in PP Opinion: I had the opportunity to try it, even if I was not so confident seen everything you read on the net, but perhaps will be 'my copy successful, I have had to reverse the capacita'di this point, almost no curvature of field or at least a little annoying, and very clear already at f2.8 x other aspects, I repeat AC high but eliminated entirely with ACR with a simple click ... what can I say, I'm fully satisfied with this item! |
 | sent on 10 Febbraio 2012 Pros: constructed with great care, high sharpness at the center already f. 2.8 Distortion and vignetting very correct, taking into account the focus of which you speak. Cons: The yield on the edge at the widest apertures (up to F: 6.3 - 9.5) is disappointing marked chromatic aberration at the edges. Opinion: In my opinion the performance, though good overall, do not justify such a high price. In a comparison made with the Nikon 14-24 a friend of mine, on the edges wide open have emerged, unfortunately for me, really significant differences in favor of the Nikon, even though it is a zoom lens and optics sold at a price much less. I tested it with both my canon (D5markII and D7) and I can say that on APS C, where it is equivalent to a 22mm, the yield on the frame is much more uniform. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
