|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
2
|
29998
|
June 9, 2008
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Purchase
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
$1,950.00
|
|
|
Construction Quality
|
Image Quality
|
Overall Rating
|
|
10.00
|
10.00
|
10.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
telecommuter
Registered: June 2008
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: June 9, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $1,900.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, very low CA, creative possibility with FF
|
|
Cons:
|
cost
|
|
The urge to "go wide" has increased my appetite for a lens such as this - a non fisheye super wide.
This 14mm II unit is da bomb. The challenge is to use it within the constraints of field curvature/DoF, and that requires experimentation.
Stopped down it is sharp across the entire, insane field of view. Only certain shots reveal minor CA, and that is easily corrected using DPP. Color saturation is great, and overall I was surprised at how little geometric weirdness is apparent unless my composition was sloppy.
I have read bad reviews of the first iteration of this lens. The new version is extraordinary.
Highly recommended.
Examples:
http://www.idyll.com/gallery2/v/lens/14mm/
|
|
FlashBang
Registered: February 2008
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: February 29, 2008
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $2,000.00| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, Light, Sharper then Canon 14mm I, No distortion on a 1.3 body
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive, front lens pron to damage, but the nature of the design
|
|
I had to get this lens twice to get a sharp copy, 1st one was off on the right center edge.
This one I have now is perfect and handles distortion and CA very well and sharp right to the edge.
Color, contrast, sharpness are all excellent, the new lens cap design beats the old with a more secure hold to the lens hood.
I sold a Canon 16-35mm because this lens dose a better job at the wide end and the 16-35 also help fund the 14 consider its 2K street price, but well worth the admission price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
