Canon EF14mm on 1DSmk2?

Anybody have any experience of the EF14mm on the 1DS mk2. Is this lens good enough for this camera? I'm hearing a lot of talk about many wide rectlinears not cutting it on edge quality when mounted on the EOS.

Cheers

Steve

Personally, I am dissatisfied with the 16-35 zoom on the full-frame, underwater. I've been shooting with Sigma 20/1.8, Canon 24/1.4, and Canon 35/1.4. I just purchased the Tokina 17mm for $380 or so, and will give that a try in June.

I have the Sigma 14mm, but haven't tried it underwater yet. Do you have the Canon 14? If so, take it under and let us know.

Thanks Eric,

I'm currently using the Nikon 14mm with film.

I'm at a point where I'm undecided whether to house a D2X or the 1DSmk2. I've read reports that the superior resolving power of the 1DSmk2 is showing up failings in lenses that could not be detected with film. Since the 14, along with the fisheye are my mainstays for wide work, if the 14 is ineffective with the 1DSmk2, then this is a serious consideration in my choice-a working 14mm on a full frame Digital SLR is desirable for me, but not essential - I can always use film with my Nikon set up is I wish to use this lens.

So I suppose if the 14 works well on the 1D, it would sway me towards buying the Canon, if not I'd sway towards the D2X, since my investment in Nikon gear is higher than Canon (and the D2X is £2000 cheaper!! ).

Cheers

Steve

Since the 14, along with the fisheye are my mainstays for wide work, if the 14 is ineffective with the 1DSmk2, then this is a serious consideration in my choice-a working 14mm on a full frame Digital SLR is desirable for me, but not essential - I can always use film with my Nikon set up is I wish to use this lens.

To avoid any misconceptions, that lens on the D2X will not produce your typical 14mm image (from a film aspect). This is a result of the D2X being a cropped-sensor camera...

To avoid any misconceptions, that lens on the D2X will not produce your typical 14mm image (from a film aspect). This is a result of the D2X being a cropped-sensor camera...

 

~Matt Segal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and it will not produce your typical 14mm image with neither a Canon 20D nor 1D mkII, which are also cropped-sensor cameras. The best wide angle lenses for cropped sensor cameras are Nikon's 12-24 and Canon's 10-22 (which works only on the 20D and dRebel). The advantage of Nikon in the wide end is that it offers the 10.5mm fish eye specifically for 1.5x sensors, and that their DX lenses work on all cameras, from the D50 to the D2x, while Canon's EFS lenses work only on the 20D and the dRebel. I have been delaying my switch to digital for a long time, but because of these reasons above, I decided to stay with Nikon and purchased a D2x.

Now, to answer your original question, I am no Canon expert, but here is what I heard from a friend (he doesn't shoot underwater) that has the 14mm and both the 1Ds mkII and the 20D:

There is some distortion at the edges of the image that was cropped out with the 1.6 multiplier *he means on his 20D*. But the lack of distortion for the rest of the image is pretty amazing for a lens that wide.

The sharpness and color are excellent. Yes it is expensive, but you can crop out the edges and end up with some wonderful wide shots.

Hi Luiz,

I guess you're unfamiliar with the full frame world...:-) Millionfish is considering the purchase of a 1DsmkII, a full frame camera. So he can purchase a full frame fisheye (either a 15mm Canon or Sigma) or even an 8mm fisheye. Since he can afford a full frame camera, there are literally hundreds of lenses out there designed for his system.

So the fact that Nikon makes a DX fisheye is a moot point.

Now back to the original question - my gut feeling is that you will be as happy with the 14mm Canon lens on the 1DsmkII as you'd be shooting it on a Canon film camera. I would also take a close look at the Tokina 17mm.

Cheers

James

Hi Luiz,

 

I guess you're unfamiliar with the full frame world...:-)  Millionfish is considering the purchase of a 1DsmkII, a full frame camera.  So he can purchase a full frame fisheye (either a 15mm Canon or Sigma) or even an 8mm fisheye.  Since he can afford a full frame camera, there are literally hundreds of lenses out there designed for his system.

 

Cheers

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess I misunderstood the oroginal psot as well, then. I understood Steve to mean that if the 14mm wasn't good on the 1DsMkII that he would use his Nikon 14mm on the D2x. If that was the case, then the 14mm would be cropped. Perhaps he meant that he would save money by getting the D2x, then just not use it for super-wide. He'd use film for that and digital for everything else . . .

Mike

The best wide angle lenses for cropped sensor cameras are Nikon's 12-24 and Canon's 10-22 (which works only on the 20D and dRebel).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can also get the Tokina 12-24 for Canon EOS mount, which is reportedly an excellent lens. And if you're interested in a 10-22, Sigma is releasing theirs very shortly which will be compatable with all EOS mounts.

Hi Luiz,

 

I guess you're unfamiliar with the full frame world...:-)  Millionfish is considering the purchase of a 1DsmkII, a full frame camera.  So he can purchase a full frame fisheye (either a 15mm Canon or Sigma) or even an 8mm fisheye.  Since he can afford a full frame camera, there are literally hundreds of lenses out there designed for his system.

 

So the fact that Nikon makes a DX fisheye is a moot point.

 

Now back to the original question - my gut feeling is that you will be as happy with the 14mm Canon lens on the 1DsmkII as you'd be shooting it on a Canon film camera.  I would also take a close look at the Tokina 17mm.

 

Cheers

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My bad! Now I get it, he is deciding between the 1Ds mkII and the D2x. The impression I got from Matt's post was that the D2x was the only cropped sensor camera out there. By the way, I am familiar with the full frame world , as I am still shooting full frame with my F100, but not for long. I ordered my D2x today, now it is a done deal.

Now back to the original post, Steve, one thing I can tell you, if those are your only two choices you will have a great camera whatever decision you make. Even if the 1Ds shows distortion along the edges you will still have plenty of pixels left after you crop the image.

Or, you can just accept slightly soft corners, as I do. Often, the corners are in the blue, anyway.

we had soft corners when we shot film, too. remember?

Perhaps he meant that he would save money by getting the D2x, then just not use it for super-wide.  He'd use film for that and digital for everything else . . .

 

Mike

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly right Mike - the choice is a 1DSMK2 using the Canon 14mm or a D2X (but will have to use the F100 whenever I'm using the Nikon 14mm).

If the view was that the Canon 14mm does not work well with the 1DSMk2, it would have made the decision easier.

Ideal solution for me would be for Nikon to either bring out a full frame DSLR or a 9mm rectilinear DX lens.....I won't hold my breath though <_<

Thanks for the replies and sorry for my ambiguous original post

Steve

Whats wrong with the 10.5 for the D2X? Not very expensive ($500 or something? buy 4 for the price difference of D2X and the Canon) and is equivalent to the 16mm on film...Alex seems to be doing some pretty damn good stuff with that if you ask me....

If it came down to Canon and 14 or the Nikon and 10.5 i don't see where the question lies. That seems to me to be the perfect solution to your question...

There is not that big a diff between 14 and 16 (mind you i have only used the Sigma 14 and on land only whereas have used the NIkon 16 underwater) so i can't think that there is that big a diff. Save your money and get the 10.5

Canon bad.......Nikon good..........

Hi Mike,

The 10.5 would be added if I went for the D2X. But that only fills the fisheye requirement. Admittedly the Fisheye is my favoured lens underwater for wide work, however on land, I prefer rectilinears such as the Canon/Nikon 14mm - and I also have need for these underwater

Cheers

Steve

Gotcha..didn't realize the 14 wasn't a fish eye...

One can also de-fish a fisheye electronically. I have not figured out what the focal length of the de-fished 10.5 is using Nikon Capture, it is a tad soft in the corners topside however. Sigma is coming out with a zoom with 10mm as its shortest focal length, which if acurate would be the equivalent of the 15mm recti-lens (manual focus, 3.5 max aperture or earlier 5.6), 110 degree AOV. Nikon is due to come out with prime DX wide-angles but you are right, especially as scuba divers we should not hold our breaths!

Tom

I'm sure that this has been aired on wetpixel before but if not......

Any lens with a field of view in excess of 90 degrees (ie 20mm on 35mm film format) will probably show soft corners. This is because the curved virtual image produced by the dome can not be fully focussed on, except at small apertures which are in general not used much of the time. Even the depth-of-field of a 14mm will not fully focus on a real-world image if the foreground is quite close to the port and the result is soft corners. It doesn't matter who make the lens as the problem is optical not quality orientated.

This is not true for fisheye lenses which should produce better corners so de-fishing an image is probably a better solution in many circumstances.

With the advent of the current high resolution dSLRs, a further problem is occuring - diffraction limitation is kicking in meaning that if you do use small apertures then some degree of image quality loss has to accepted too.

For the best quality results from 90 degree plus lenses, the solution is to use as big a dome as possible, the optimum aperture (I reckon this will be f/8~11 for most ultrawides) and chose subjects which don't include very close corner filling foreground! (I'd be interested to hear from people who can bear these comments out as they are based on optical theory and my own personal observations! I'd love to hear of any lens/port combinations which do work extremely well with ultrawides!!!)

Or, you can just accept slightly soft corners, as I do.  Often, the corners are in the blue, anyway.

 

we had soft corners when we shot film, too.  remember?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that Eric makes an important point. Corners have never been perfect with ultrawide (weitwinkel) lenses when shot underwater.

For underwater pix (not land) I am increasingly enjoying the Nikon 16mm FE (for all the big boys I shot in the Maldives). Which must give pretty similar coverage on a cropped sensor as a 14mm rectilinear gives on FF? And for Steve you have the advantage that you already own it. Its not rectilinear so not that much help on land - but then on land you can always walk further back from the subject (only joking).

For Paul's interest I don't see much difference in corner sharpness and other aberations with the 16mm and 10.5mm on the D2X (although obviously the corners are more distorted by the 10.5mm fisheye). But my tests are not that exhaustive because with my Subtronics on 1/4 power I tend to end up in the sweetspot aperturewise of f8!

Alex

p.s. the only other warning I would make with both the Canon and Nikon the 14mm is make sure that they fit inside ports. They may not with all types of housings.

One final point on the D2X vs 1DS MK2 choice is housing availability. Which is not very good for the D2X at the moment - whereas there are several places I know with 1DS housings on the shelf.

You don't want to buy the latest and greatest camera and find that there isn't a housing for it for 6 months.

This situation might change. As far more D2X housings are being made than 1DS housings. Also with the 1D series body coming to the end of its life and very likely to change physically for the 1Ds Mk3 or whatever - I think that wise housing manufacturers will stop production on housings soon if they have not already (nobody wants to get stuck with new housings that they cannot sell). For example, according to Alan James Sea and Sea stopped production on their D70 housings last year.

Alex

Since I was looking at 14mm SWA lenses, I conferred with 2 top photographers who use Canon. They believe(and I now concur with them) that the Canon 14L is outrperformed by the Sigma 14. Not that either are perfect but the Sigma is better. The problem is that Sigma has a bit less QC so getting a good copy ( I went through 2) will be a slightly more difficult task.

But why pay more for a lesser performing lens?

Just to clarify on Alex's comments. Fisheye lenses SHOULD give better corners as their optics are fundamentally different from rectilinear lenses. Although I haven't tried this myself, I suspect that the 16mm fisheye on the cropped format will produce good corner sharpeness but the question is whether defishing it will reduce this to the level of a rectilinear lens corners! Of course its not always necessary to defish!