Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Lens

2021-01-11T07:25:12

Several years ago I briefly tested the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM lens, and I was satisfied with its quality. However, I did not need to purchase it at that point in time. Recently I would have preferred an RF version of that lens, but I did not expect an eminent release of that model. So I went ahead and ordered this well established EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM model, and it is very good. The nice thing about the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM is that it will work natively with Canon DSLRs or with the “R” series mirrorless camera bodies using a Canon adapter. Until an RF series update for this lens becomes available, this lens will be fine for my needs.

JULIAN K.

2019-04-09T20:00:00

Great for tight spaces and architectural photography. stays crisp and clear in the whole frame. minimal vignetting if any. color capture is great

kbroenen

Originally posted at

2016-12-08T19:00:00

I really want to give this lens 5 stars, but it's corner sharpness is just not good enough for a perfect score. It's not as sharp as some other Canon prime lenses, but it's more difficult to make a super sharp lens at such a wide angle. It's still sharper than the 16-35mm L. Everything else about this lens as fantastic. It's one of my favorite lenses. I just love the viewing angle, it's superb. It's around 100-110 degrees across, and has little to no distortion. This means if you shoot with the camera level, a horizontal line will be perfectly straight. Shoot perpendicular to a horizontal line, and it will be straight. You can show and entire room from a corner, plus a little of each wall you are standing near. If you are a fan of wide angle this is a must try lens.

Sproesser

Originally posted at

2016-11-14T13:44:16

I'm using Canon 5D and 7D bodies. I first got the Canon 8-15mm zoom wide angle, but that was way too wide, and of course added the fish eye affect with a curved horizon. I returned that and got this lens. The build quality was what you would expect from a Canon L lens. The photos are just great for what I'm using the lens for, which is scenic shots while vacationing. Of course, because of the curved from lens, you can't use any filters. The lens hood cover is great and easy to attach and detach. The lens is quick to auto focus. For the level that I am as a photographer, and what I'm using this lens for, it is just what I wanted and works great.

MARK M.

2016-08-04T20:00:00

A stunning wide angle landscape lens on APS-C. APS-C reviews on this lens are rare. I'm using this lens on the new 80D. 22.5mm after the crop factor is perfect for wide landscape work. Images are edge to edge sharp from f/8 to f/16 and barrel distortion is minimal. Clarity, contrast, and color is excellent. These qualities are exactly what you want for pro landscape photography. If you're serious about wide angle landscape photography on APS-C, this is the right tool for the job. Don't believe the negative comments on technical reviews claiming that this lens is not worth the money over the EF-S lens options. The only advantage to the EF-S is if you need ultra-wide. This lens is probably overkill for general consumer use. The price is a bit steep. It really comes down to what you're trying to achieve and what you expect. You get what you pay for. If you need it, you need it..

solobackcountry

Originally posted at

2015-07-25T21:00:00

I use this lens for architectural photography. Sharpness across the field is adequate at f/5.6 and smaller apertures. Same for DOF. Lens exhibits noticeable pincushion distortion, especially in the long axis of the frame. Can be mitigated in PS.

Rich

2014-07-16T21:00:00

Fantastic lens for interior pictures. No noticeable barrel distortion, great image quality. I had been using a Nikon 14-24 but was getting frustrated spending time correcting the barrel distortion. The Canon 14/2.8L II doesn't need any correction for barrel distortion and it seems to be a little sharper than the Nikon. When taking multiple pictures for HDR the camera/lens can be left in AF. With the Nikon zoom a slight refocus would change the image size, so it had to be flipped into MF. The Canon is also a little lighter so the tripod doen't have to be lccked down as tight. Stand in the corner of a room and you can capture the whole room with a sharp image that doesn't need to be touched up in Photoshop. Cons: a little purple fringing outside in the corners ... perhaps a little chromatic distortion, but I don't think I've seen a better superwide. Setting the 8-14 fisheye at 12mm then defishing the image gives a wider view but it isn't as sharp (its very usable but can't compete with the 14/2.8L II).

Jeff K.

2014-06-25T21:00:00

Performs as expected for an L series lens. The only real drawback for me is noticeable chromatic abberation, particularly around the perimeter of the image. More pronounced at f2.8 and f4.

KEVIN C.

2014-04-17T21:00:00

I use this for very large product photography and also commercially for room layout shooting. I was skeptical at first but my concerns were very soon calmed with the first shoot. The results were stunning from corner to corner and edge to edge. Thank heavens I decided to go for it. Another victory for the Canon "L" Series

Robert J.

2013-12-16T19:00:00

The brand new package, Adorama is a leading Canon distributor in the world.

RAY P.

2013-10-30T20:00:00

I tested this lens on a full frame camera at every aperture under a variety of settings. The lens was not real sharp, even in the center, until around f/8 and showed a lot of distortion towards the edges regardless of the aperture setting. I did not encounter any lens flare or mechanical problems with this lens, which is very solidly built. However, due to the optical performance I can not recommend this lens for purchase.

budnjax

Originally posted at

2013-05-13T21:00:00

I like to use it for action shots. I'm in the military and sometimes its not easy to back away to get the whole scene so the wide angle REALLY helps.

Frazer's P.

2012-12-31T19:00:00

this is the best super wide for architectural photography! crazy wide, minimal distortion, minimal chromatic abberation, sharp margins, fast lens.

Stiffy

Originally posted at

2012-11-12T19:00:00

I mostly photograph weddings and I purchased the 14/2.8II because I already have the 24/1.4II and 35/1.4 and I was going to use these three lenses to cover the range that I normally cover with the 16-35/2.8II and the 15/2.8 fisheye lenses. I like the quality of primes because they minimally distort, are razor sharp, and are fast. At least, that's been my experience, and I was hoping to repeat it with this lens. What I found is that the 14/2.8II at f/2.8 is acceptably sharp at the center, but moving away from the center toward the edges it is very unsharp. The edges didn't sharpen much until f/5.6, with full sharpening by f/11. This is worse than the 16-35/2.8II, which is generally sharp throughout the entire image starting at f/2.8. Also, the 14/2.8II still retains the 6 bladed aperture to produce a 6 point sunburst flare, which does not look realistic, while the 16-35/2.8II has a 7 bladed aperture that produces a 14 point sunburst. So, shooting into the sun or at night with streetlamps, all of these point sources of light have sparse-looking 6 pointed stars. After shooting several images side-by-side with the 16-35/2.8II, I realized that I can step back with the 16-35/2.8II to get the same focal length as the 14mm, then correct barrel distortion in LR4 to get an image that looks virtually identical to the 14/2.8II, yet of better sharpness. Also, unlike the 16-35/2.8II, this lens has a purple fringe up to f/11, and it is noticeable on backlit subjects. The AF on this lens (using center AF point focuses slightly better than the 16-35/2.8II in low light by about 1/2 stop. But, using using AF points farthest from the center (on the 1DX) produced out-of-focus images, no matter the light. Focus and recompose was the only way to get off-center compositions to be sharp. I'm not sure if the glass being convex is the cause of the AF not being accurate away from the center, but this is not a problem with the 15/2.8 fisheye, which is also convex. The 16-35/2.8II and my other lenses don't have this problem either. Basically, I expect a prime to be better than a zoom in nearly every respect, particularly at its widest aperture. This lens is only better in its elimination of barrel distortion and nearly everything else is worse than the 16-35/2.8II. Well, OK - it does have less vignetting than the 16-35/2.8II wide open. But, this is basically a f/5.6 lens with edge-to-edge sharpness becoming equivalent to the 16-35/2.8II at f/11. I do not consider this to be a lens for anything but landscapes and architecture, where most images are photographed at f/11 and higher.

Indy P.

Originally posted at

2012-09-09T21:00:00

To my knowledge this is the widest angle rectilinear lens Canon makes - and it is a beauty! You can buy a fisheye lens with a wider field of view but the image will be distorted with straight lines becoming curved. I do notice that autofocus has difficulty when both near and infinity objects are in the frame. For example a landscape that includes sky and nearby features on the ground. In such cases you simply must switch to manual focus and decide where you want the sharpest focus to be. Stopping down to the smallest aperture will help if you want the maximun depth of field possible. Of course if lighting and other factors do not permit such a small f-stop you can take several shots focused on close, medium, and far points and blend them in Photoshop layers to produce an image with great depth of field.

NevadaTom

2012-09-09T20:00:00

I purchased this lens in 2008 based on Canon's reputation and my personal experience with a wide range of canon fixed focal lenses that I had purchased over the years. The pictures I took with this lens were so sharp, it changed my understanding of lenses altogether. Case in point, I took a picture of the night sky in Canada on oct 21, 2011. the settings were f/2.8, 15 seconds, ISO 2000. I noticed a cluster of stars at the edge of the image. When I zoomed in it turned out to be the Pleiades constellation. I could actually see all seven sisters. I am so happy with this lens, the next one will be the 17mm f/4L TS-E.

Jay

Originally posted at

2012-06-24T21:00:00

I shoot Real Estate photography and Video and mount this baby to my new Mark 3 and it is phenomenal! I can only compare it to a 60D with a 11-16m Tokina so it really isnt fair. I could complain about the cost but all I can say is if you spenf $500 and your unhappy you will always remember it every time you use it but if you buy good stuff you will forget about the money soon and be happy forever. This lens is freaking amazing and worth the money and I am not a pro. If you make a living with your equipment it is no brainer! just buy it

Jason J.

2012-06-08T20:00:00

I have been using Canon for a long time now. I thought the Couldn't do a bad product based on reputation and price. This is the most expensive wide lens they offer. I just bought it. What a mistake! I couldn't believe the results so I sent the lens to CPS (Canon Pro Services) to repair. It came back still couldn't believe the result of the pics. I sent the lens along with my 5D II to repair 3 more times (as they request to test the camera). I spoke to customer care rep., supervisors, 1 tech and finally the "ambassador". So finally I believe it. The lens is sharp only in the very center of the frame (circle where you focus) the rest of the image is bury and have chromatic aberration at the point it can be used. I had to star using my old 15-30 3.5 not canon lens. I asked if I could return it since I can use it. It was not possible. Just go to an store and test it and down load it to your computer. Very disappointed.

leoo

Originally posted at

2012-04-15T21:00:00

The widest lens without going to a fisheye. Outstanding performance.

Lanc

2012-04-01T21:00:00

Don't buy this lens to "fit" more into your photo, buy it to bring something close to the "front", and to leave other far things "in the back." Note: 16-35-ii is more versatile lens.

ALEXANDER K.

2012-02-05T19:00:00

For scenery and night sky. This is excellent without for corners (edges).

Kay

2012-01-08T19:00:00

I have had this lens a couple of weeks after buying as part of a trade one I dont regret. This lens is simply superb. On a 1 series body this lens is super wide and is sharp corner to corner. The light gathering power is excellent and there is little sign of vignetting, CA or flare. For its size it is a little heavy and the price tag is a little steep but you get what you pay for and this is the best. For best use this lens needs to stopped down and a tripod is strongly recommended, if you are using it for taking landscapes. I have also used it for close in action shots of skateboarding and it performs well here too. If you are on the market for a wide angle - this is it

MIKE W.

2011-09-11T20:00:00

I rented this lens a couple of times before deciding to make the purchase. When I received the lens, I spent the time to adjust the microfocus on my 5D Mk II - and then I took the lens to Canyonlands National Park in Utah for some serious landscape work. I shot with it mounted on a tripod, mirror lockup, remote shutter release. The resulting images are sharp in the center, and horribly soft on the edges. Thinking the issue was that I was shooting at f/8, I did some experimenting and shot at f/22, f/16, f/8, and f/4. The only shots that come close to "good" focus were taken at f/22. Perhaps I have a bad copy of this lens - but so far it's a major disappointment.

HangGlider

Originally posted at

2011-06-14T21:00:00

I bought this lens not realizing the results I would achieve. When I first used it, the scope of the lens blew me away and I love what you can do and achieve with this lens. I understand some people may expect a zoom, but it would totally destroy the picture you get and for landscapes, city life and large areas of space where you want to bring it all together, this is the lens for you. I love it and am so happy to have bought it.

LEIGH L.

2011-01-11T19:00:00

I've rarely encountered a lens that has so quickly stoked my imagination and produced gratifying results "right out of the box"! This superbly sharp and well made lens knocks my sense of space and composition into high gear, giving consistently mind bending images. I've felt challenged by the expanded point of view it provides to overcome moments of creative malaise. The lens kick starts new ways of recording one's subjects of visual delight. I am thrilled to own such a high quality tool that holds such promise of expanding creative activity for years to come!

HARRY F.

2010-07-08T20:00:00

This lens is sharp and distortion free. My favorite characteristic is the great color rendition possible when using this lens. Stunning landscapes and dramatic building shots are the norm.

Ted

Originally posted at

2010-02-20T19:00:00

The view through this lens is amazing, everything without the fish-eye look. The colors are great.

Roy C.

2009-08-07T20:00:00

For architectural and interior shooters with full frame bodies this lens will be a staple right next to the EF 15 2.8. Much improved for digital bodies in the corners with less vignetting and chromatic abberation. Heavy and easy to damage though not usually a problem on a tripod. Really expensive upgrade for what you get IMO as the old EF 14 2.8L USM was O.K. on film but really not a particularly great lens on a digial body. For digital you almost have to have the mkII version unless you are willing to carefully correct the chromatic abberations in LR or CS4. Pricey but if you have to shoot wide there is nothing else to compete with it for a full frame Canon digital body.

EOS4me

Originally posted at

2009-08-03T21:00:00

This is a super expensive lens...but people who want it know exactly *why* they are getting it. As far as an UWA lens, nothing beats it on a Canon. The guy that complains about it not being a zoom doesn't understand the point of these UWA's. IF Canon did that, the lens would weigh more and would undoubtedly have issues with distortion/pin cushion that is inevitable when you're dealing with something this wide. IF you want an UWA, then you clearly don't need a zoom, since that's not the point of an UWA! If you have crop-sensored Canon (Rebel, 40D, etc.), save your money...and get the 10-22mm. This is definitely a lens you only ought to be considering with a full frame (1D, 5D) camera, since that's the only way you'll get the full width of a the 14mm. On a 1.6x crop body, you loose that advantage...and you're paying a lot of money for something you don't need. All in all, this is a stellar lens. Not for everyone....but for those in the know, this lens is awesome!

Matt M.

2009-05-26T21:00:00

Would be helpful if somehoe they could make one with a zoom. Price was a little high as well.

David