Next Question
RSS
Disclaimer: I have no first hand experience with this lens.
I do have a friend with the oId version, and he's not very happy with it for what he paid. He said it's a good lens, but the vignetting on his copy is very bad, he gets a lot of CA, and the corners are quite soft. He's pretty close to replacing it with the II version, but he's a very particular person.
If you have the I, I think the big question is whether or not you are satisfied with the performance of the lens yourself. The vignetting might not be an issue if you shoot it stopped down, for instance. Your corners might be sharp enough for your liking, and you might not get as much CA as he does.
My bet is that if you're dissatisfied with the old version, the new one will probably satisfy you, but if you're happy with what you've got, why bother changing it?
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Source(s):
Personal Experience
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$2
December 20, 2008 10:42 AM
Is the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM lens (2007 model) considerably better than the older EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM?
The Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM lens has been discontinued and replaced with the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM lens. No doubt, the newer lens is terrific. But is the old one really as bad as these reviews suggest?
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-14mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-14mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Anyone has tested both lenses? Is the new lens better to a degree that would justify replacing the old one with the new one?
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-14mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-14mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Anyone has tested both lenses? Is the new lens better to a degree that would justify replacing the old one with the new one?
Interesting Question?
Yes (1)
No (0)
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| December 20, 2008 02:24 PM |
I do have a friend with the oId version, and he's not very happy with it for what he paid. He said it's a good lens, but the vignetting on his copy is very bad, he gets a lot of CA, and the corners are quite soft. He's pretty close to replacing it with the II version, but he's a very particular person.
If you have the I, I think the big question is whether or not you are satisfied with the performance of the lens yourself. The vignetting might not be an issue if you shoot it stopped down, for instance. Your corners might be sharp enough for your liking, and you might not get as much CA as he does.
My bet is that if you're dissatisfied with the old version, the new one will probably satisfy you, but if you're happy with what you've got, why bother changing it?
| Asker's Rating: |
• All 3 answers submitted were excellent and helpful. Although not telling from first-hand experience, the first answer already mentioned all main weaknesses of the old lens. It was chosen first among equals as it was submitted first. Thanks to @mrnemo and @belleg for their very helpful answers, too!
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (2)
December 20, 2008 02:29 PM
I have not done a serious test personally. A friend had the new one and I tried it against my old one (I mean REALLY OLD - I could not afford a new one). The new one produces a sharper image with my 10D. It is definitely noticeable. I don't have the pictures any longer but I could definitely see it, and I think this discussion is relatively active on the web. The AF seemed a lot faster to me and not as clunky. My understanding is that the new lens is designed with DSLR users in mind, so it reduces chromatic aberrations, even though I couldn't tell you that I noticed first hand.
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 20, 2008 04:40 PM
mrnemo is right about the correction of chromatic aberrations in the new lens.
Typically companies, especially Canon, put a lot of money into the R&D side of lenses. Lenses come out way less often than camera bodies so one would suspect that an updated lens would be faster, quiter, sharper or any other necessary imporvements to make it better.
Just a thought...
Report
Typically companies, especially Canon, put a lot of money into the R&D side of lenses. Lenses come out way less often than camera bodies so one would suspect that an updated lens would be faster, quiter, sharper or any other necessary imporvements to make it better.
Just a thought...
December 21, 2008 12:54 PM
Thank you! The main difference indeed seems to be the better correction of chromatic abberation. Having a faster AF isn't bad, either. @mrnemo and @damienfranco are right: Canon did not just change the look of the lenses. The old one has been out for 8 years at least… And a lot has changed in the mean time.
Report
December 20, 2008 05:21 PM
I find the new lense much better than the older one especially in terms of chromatic aberrations. I tried the old one several years ago but decided not to use it because of unacceptable CA. I got EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM instead. Several months ago I rented EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM and I was quite happy with the image quality and the reduced CA. I am planning on replacing my EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM with EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM when I have some extra money.
Source(s):
Personal Experience
Permalink | Report
Reply
December 21, 2008 01:00 PM
Interesting. You came to the same conclusion as the author of that review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-14mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
The author also chose the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM over the EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM. I found it remarkable and shocking that a zoom lens would be sharper and better than a professional fixed focal length lens. But everyone seems to like the new version. Thank you!
Report
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-14mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
The author also chose the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM over the EF 14mm f/2.8 L USM. I found it remarkable and shocking that a zoom lens would be sharper and better than a professional fixed focal length lens. But everyone seems to like the new version. Thank you!
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Do you believe Rebecca St. James is really still a virgin like she claims?
"Do you realize Barack Obama is tougher on insurance companies than he is on the 9/11...
Does Windows 7 generally offer better performance for computer games than Windows XP,...
hi, i am 15 and i think i have a muscle condition
"Do you realize Barack Obama is tougher on insurance companies than he is on the 9/11...
Does Windows 7 generally offer better performance for computer games than Windows XP,...
hi, i am 15 and i think i have a muscle condition
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- m3ry3m, November 15, 2009 01:38 PM
- sunwei415, November 15, 2009 01:32 PM
- conundrum_melis..., November 15, 2009 12:39 PM
- laura123, November 15, 2009 12:26 PM
- georgixd, November 15, 2009 12:21 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
If you're looking for approximate used prices, there's a great site - KEH. They're easily the best used reseller on the whole 'net, and they will give you a realistic starting point when evaluating the price of a lens. Their equipment grading is very, very conservative. Anything over "bargain" will be indistinguishable from new, and anything "bargain" will be in clearly used, but nice shape.
http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductList.aspx?Mode=searchproducts&item=0&ActivateTOC2=false&ID=&Size=&BC=CE&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=
They want $1200-1300 or so for the I version in excellent plus condition (which is essentially as good as new).
It's also worth noting that the retail prices are *always* way over inflated. By this I mean the alleged retail price. They set them very, very high on lenses for some reason. The II version is selling for $1870 from Amazon right now, and $1970 from B&H Photo also in spite of a "$3000" price tag.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Ultra-Wide-Angle-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000V5P94Q/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1229874664&sr=8-1
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/519474-USA/Canon_2045B002_Super_Wide_Angle_EF.html
Most lenses in Canon's lineup seem to get the same treatment. The "suggested" price is set significantly higher than what anyone charges for it so you can't accurately determine whether or not you're getting a deal very easily. See the 70-300 DO IS lens, which was never one of their better valued offerings, but was certainly never $2000 street price - it started around $1300-1400 or so. If Best Buy were to carry it, they may have charged $1899 or something, but anyone like B&H will generally be way under the MRSP from the beginning.
For a more affordable example, I paid about $240 for the 55-250mm IS lens when it came out. It's running about $220 now, but the claimed "retail" price is $300.
Hopefully this helps when it comes to determining values of lenses :D