Some Canon 'L' lens tests now available with 100% crop images

<p>For those of you interested, I have posted reviews of 3 Canon 'L' lenses on my website, complete with 100% crop center & edge images:<br>

http://www.stephenmcateer.co.uk/lens_reviews/lens_reviews.html<br>

More lens tests to come. Your comments are welcome.</p>

<p>Stephen McAteer.</p>

<p>good info, but there are no image specs as far as ISO and shutter speed. Did you use a tripod with shutter release or s/t and MLU? The 2.8 image from the 14mm look soft, almost like slight motion blur, but I guess at 100% at 2.8 on such a wide lens, it could be soft. I'd like to see the full size original photo from the 14mm so I know how much coverage the crop is. Did you use auto focus or manual focus and maintain the same focus point for all images? Also, its hard to compare "lens tests" from images of different subjects. I'm not trying to tear the reviews apart, I'm just trying to give some tips on how to make the tests a little more uniform.</p>

<p>I don't see anything distinctive about your reviews. You're doing the same things other reviewers are doing, but you aren't doing them in as much depth or as well. What's the point? What, in your opinion, do your reviews offer to someone who already reads the Canon lens reviews at the-digital-picture.com, photozone.de, and slrgear.com? There are lots of lens review sites already, so you really need something more than just another review, something that really makes you stand out, if you want people to read your site.</p>

<p>Nathan, I plan to re-do the 14mm test with the same subject as the other 2 lenses. I'll put the ISO information (It was 100) and focus (Auto) info on there too. Same focus point was used for all images. I used a tripod & cable release for all exposures. Thanks for your comments.</p>

<p>I am not sure what the issue is with your 14 F2.8 but you have a problem. My crappy old Sigma 14 f3.5 produces images as good as this and I hate it. I used to use (but not own) the old FD 14 F2.8 and it would produce much sharper images at F2.8 than the one you show. Indeed my 16-35 f2.8 II is much sharper wide open. Perhaps the re-test will show a sharper image (use MLU if you can)</p>

<p>Agreed Philip the 14 mm shots are shockingly bad, if I paid nearly £2000 for a lens that produced results like that I would be seriously miffed. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you’re a professional photographer (Or keen amateur) in need of an ultra-wide lens for your Canon camera, look no further. Performance of this lens is excellent</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you seeing something I'm not Stephen.</p>

 

<p>Be nice people</p>

<p>I too have some issues with the 14mm images - although I have to say that I have never used this lens or an equivelant version, the widest lens I use is the 16-35mm f2.8 II.</p>

<p>Having said that, I'm not sure that looking at the samples supplied, would do anything other than send me running in the opposite direction. To conclude <strong><em>"If you’re a professional photographer (Or keen amateur) in need of an ultra-wide lens for your Canon camera, look no further" </em></strong>seems a little enthusiastic for such a seemingly poor resolving lens.</p>

<p>Maybe this is the best one can expect from such a focal length - as stated, I have no yardstick to measure by - but it certainly doesn't make me want to want to drop a couple of grand to try it.</p>

 

<p>Mr. Mcateer.....<br>

<br />Thank you for your post. Despite what some of the folks have said it was informative and quite nice of you to make the effort to share it with us. I look hope some day you will do the 24-105L? <br>

<br />Mr. Dickson... <br>

<br />"I don't see anything distinctive about your reviews." <br>

<br />I do. <br>

<br />" You're doing the same things other reviewers are doing, but you aren't doing them in as much depth or as well." <br>

<br />I disagree. He provides us with a real world example. He provides us with an additional sample of his lenses. Not all lenses in the same boxes give the same results. He provides us with a different perspective. </p>

<p>" What, in your opinion, do your reviews offer to someone who already reads the Canon lens reviews at the-digital-picture.com, photozone.de, and slrgear.com?"<br>

<br />Please refer to my answer above. His are different. <br>

<br />" There are lots of lens review sites already, so you really need something more than just another review,...." <br>

<br />True, and he does. <br>

<br />"...... something that really makes you stand out, if you want people to read your site." <br>

<br />Also true and I do want to read it. <br>

<br />A. T. Burke</p>

<p>AT and everyone else, thanks for the comments. I welcome constructive criticism. I'll do reviews of the remaining 'L' lenses I have and update the existing reviews with the requested information.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Stephen.</p>

<p>Stephen - sorry if I was rude, this was not my intent but either you have a very bad copy of the lens or something has happened as it was shot or posted. I would be interested in seing a re-post of the lens and I personally have no problem with more people posting reviews. We are not obligated to read them and their is value in diverse opinions. My reaction (like Gary and Craig) was simply to the very poor quality from this lens. It really is worse than the images from a Sigma 14 F3.5 that I bought and still own - but never use!</p>

<p>Philip - no offence taken. Maybe this is just a bad copy of the 14mm lens - I'll retest it.</p>

<p>I think you should stephen and if the results are similar I would be talking to Canon ASAP.</p>

<p>I only looked at your first review...the 14mm and that was as far as I got. The picture you posted is underexposed....so I decided not to read further. I figure, if the pic isn't even exposed properly how can I trust the rest of the review? Also, you provide a center and an edge crop at 100%, but no link to the overall photo as a reference? By the way, if that is what your 14mm is doing for you get a refund.<br>

<br />There are already tonnes of good sites posting reviews on lenses, so unless you find it particularily enjoyable I wouldn't bother.</p>

<p>I've re-tested the 14mm L II and posted a new test of the 50mm L f1.2 for those interested. Link: http://www.stephenmcateer.co.uk/</p>