Customer reviews

Customer Reviews | 11 reviews | 3.9 out of 5

4.0 stars

11 reviews | 3.9 out of 5

4.0 stars

11 reviews | 3.9 out of 5

64%
Would recommend to a friend
5 stars
6
4 stars
1
3 stars
2
2 stars
1
1 stars
1
1-11 of 11 total reviews
64%
Would recommend to a friend

Age

Gender

Stunning
8/5/2016

Customer review by solobackcountry

5.0 stars 8/5/2016 by solobackcountry
by solobackcountry

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
Gilbert, AZ, United States
Would recommend to a friend? Yes
poor image quality
6/9/2012

Customer review by leoo

2.0 stars 6/9/2012 by leoo
by leoo

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
Miami
Would recommend to a friend? No
Great for film!
1/18/2009

Customer review by ElGordo

4.0 stars 1/18/2009 by ElGordo
by ElGordo
Top 25 contributor

The Canon 14mm f/2.8 L is a marvelous wide angle lens. Image quality:It is a little fuzzy around the edges at 2.8 but by f/4 is sharp all the way across the lens. Since this is primarily for landscapes, your f-stop is going to be higher anyway, so the f/2.8 is uncalled for. There are a few exceptions (indoor achitecture shots with low lighting and/or a prohibition against tripods being a couple), but for most people the extra speed on a lens this short is completely wasted. It is comforting to know you have the extra speed there if you ever do need it. Colour reproduction is beatuiful, with great contrast. There is considerable distortion/stretching at the edges but that's what happens when you have super-wides angle lenses. It's not a fault in the lens, but rather a failing of the laws of nature. This isn't really a problem for landscapes, and is a benefit for pictues with clouds. They seem to leap off the horizon at you. Build:It is a bit overpriced, but Canon does deliver quality. The construction is solid, with focus being nicely damped. The front element of the lens actually protrudes above the barrel. To solve this, Canon has made the lens hood a part of the body of the lens (for protection, mostly). The lens cap is a fit-over affair. It is easy to accidentally touch the glass, though. It is an extremely wide lens, and you're paying for that. It is completely wasted on anything but a full frame camera. Film guys, you're in luck. Or anyone with the 1D MIII or 5D series. The rest of us are advised to upgrade our cameras before spending 2.5 Gs on this lens. On most of Canon's DSLRs it is equivalent to a 22.4 mm lens. That is still very wide, but not what you pay the big bucks for. Pros: Massive wide angleness. 'L' class lens. 'nuff said. Cons: Price. Crop sensor zoom. Hard to protect. Summation: Unless you have a full frame (or plan to upgrade), you should buy the EF-S 10-22 which gives you almost the same length, but at around 1/3 the cost. It is not the same quality, but more useable for most DSLR owners.

Was this review helpful? (3) (0)
Thank you! You have successfully submitted feedback for this review.
Was this review helpful?
ElGordo
Would recommend to a friend? Yes
Top 25 contributor
Big bucks but worth it
8/8/2009

Customer review by EOS4me

5.0 stars 8/8/2009 by EOS4me
by EOS4me

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
Los Angeles, CA
Would recommend to a friend? Yes
Disappointed
9/12/2011

Customer review by HangGlider

3.0 stars 9/12/2011 by HangGlider
by HangGlider

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
Denver, CO
Would recommend to a friend? No
Sharpest Image Ever
9/10/2012

Customer review by Jay

5.0 stars 9/10/2012 by Jay
by Jay

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
Chicago
Would recommend to a friend? Yes
the best for landscape and architecture
4/30/2009

Customer review by scjurgen

5.0 stars 4/30/2009 by scjurgen
by scjurgen

I got more and more unsatisfied with a 12-24mm third party lens (strong distortions, blurred edge) on my 5D mark ii, so I finally decided to upgrade to this extraordinary lens. Very crisp images, limited distortions, and a remarkable fast 2.8 makes it a perfect landscape lens on the Canon 5D mark ii. I used it also on a party, well, the results where really cool. The only annoying thing is the high pricetag, but still, it is worse every cent.

scjurgen
New York, NY
Would recommend to a friend? Yes
Not happy with this lens
10/31/2013

Customer review by budnjax

3.0 stars 10/31/2013 by budnjax
by budnjax

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
Jacksonville, FL
Would recommend to a friend? No
Best colors for landscapes
7/9/2010

Customer review by Ted

5.0 stars 7/9/2010 by Ted
by Ted

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
Honolulu, HI
Would recommend to a friend? Yes
excellent lens
1/1/2013

Customer review by Stiffy

5.0 stars 1/1/2013 by Stiffy
by Stiffy

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

Stiffy
Steamboat Springs, Colo
Would recommend to a friend? Yes
14/2.8II Not Fully Sharp Until f/11
11/13/2012

Customer review by Indy Photog

1.0 stars 11/13/2012 by Indy Photog
by Indy Photog

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 Photog
Greenwood, IN
Would recommend to a friend? No