EF 14/2.8 L II for landscapes

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I'm wondering how well the EF 14/2.8 works for landscapes. Does it exhibit too much distortion for this application? And what are it's primary applications? I typically use 24mm for landscapes, and sometimes go as wide as 20mm or 17mm, but I'd love to hear from people who use the 14mm focal length, and specifically from those who have used the (very expensive) 14mm prime in question.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>I've shot with it, but my feeling for landscapes was that it wasn't particularly well suited due to the lack of front filter threads (no grads, no polarizers) and that very exposed front element. It's tough to compose shots that wide, you end up being *right* on top of your foreground subject, as little as a foot away. I do shoot a lot at 17mm though when using my 17-40.</p>

[joel_p]

<p>Tried this lens at the Canon showroom. Can't imagine having much use for it in traditional landscape setting as your background would be too far away. Would be good for close urban shots though (think subway, markets, etc.) where this ultra wide perspective can create some unique shots (with anonimity).<br>

Cheers,<br>

joel </p>

[rick_janes]

<p>Mark, I've used an FD 14mm f/2.8L some and for traditional landscaping it's kind of a yawner as Joel described, but if you're also incorporating a large expanse of interesting sky (or foreground) it can work out great! For me its "specialties" are perspective exaggeration and (mostly indoor) architectural shots; I originally bought it for shooting Flying Fortresses parked on the tarmac, an airshow walkabout of sorts!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>It is not that well received by most, but what do they know :-)</p>

<p>Don't know if you know about <a href="http://martinbaileyphotography.com/">this guy</a> , he does some great podcasts and takes some gorgeous images, <a href="http://www.martinbaileyphotography.com/thumbnails.php?album=search&narrowdown=lens&search=Canon%20EF%2014mm%20F2.8L%20II%20USM">here is a link to his 14mm gallery</a> .</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[jscown]

<p>Mark,<br>

Others have provided excellent feedback. I own this lens and the 35mm f1.4L, and find the 35mm to be much more usable for general landscape shots. I find the 14mm to be a specialty lens that I tend to use for artistic perspective work.<br>

Cheers, Jack</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_e]

<p>This is an excellent lens! If you want to take pictures that go beyond traditional (aka boring) this is a great choice. Distortion is minimal and not an issue for landscapes. If you are worried about perspective correction you need a shift lens or correct in PS. But better: make it part of your composition. This is one of the reasons to use this lens. ND filters are no problem either—the largest type of Cokin ND’s work without vignetting. Check my older posts for the workaround. Polarizing filters are problematic on all wide wide-angle lenses. The only real downside is the price.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I'll post some examples here tomorrow, but in the meantime check out my gallery. 80% of my landscapes/waterscapes and 70% of my architectural and autoshow shots are taken with a 14mm lens.</p>

<p>Although I love the 14mm focal length I think I would prefer the 17mm TS-E, if I could ever afford one. The ability to correct perspective even in landscapes would be huge!</p>

<p>Cokin filters degrade image quality immensely and I am learning how to make better corrections in Photoshop.</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>

<p>It's a great focal length for dramatic landscapes and indoor architecture?<br>

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3268/3152369210_03e1687e26_b.jpg<br>

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2374/2414549106_0fd570a5b7_b.jpg<br>

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2802/4106649130_f7a3db94be_b.jpg</p>

</p>

[gerrymorgan]

<p>I find it helps to get up above the ground to avoid exaggeratedly converging verticals. I sometimes carry a stepladder to this effect. You can think of it as a less expensive (but bulkier) alternative to having tilt-shift, assuming that you already have the Canon 14mm, which can hardly be described as inexpensive.</p><div></div>

[holzphoto]

<p>it works very well for landscapes. it's small and compact and very sharp.</p>

[erik_h7]

<p>I agree that it works well for urban areas where you have to be close to your subject. Distortion is minimal. However, I have also had very good shots with the 16-35mm f2.8L. This lens will allow more flexibility in the landscapes you are shooting. As with just about every L lens, it has a great picture quality. I have occasionally noticed some distortion at 16mm however. Nothing too bad though. Another benefit of this 16-35 is that you can use filters and I also feel like the glass is less vulnerable to scratching and such... </p>

[erik_h7]

<p>I agree that it works well for urban areas where you have to be close to your subject. Distortion is minimal. However, I have also had very good shots with the 16-35mm f2.8L. This lens will allow more flexibility in the landscapes you are shooting. As with just about every L lens, it has a great picture quality. I have occasionally noticed some distortion at 16mm however. Nothing too bad though. Another benefit of this 16-35 is that you can use filters and I also feel like the glass is less vulnerable to scratching and such... </p>