Great choice for extra wide angles

A great choice when it comes to picking an ultra wide lens for EF mount. Sigma alternative is significantly bigger and heavier. The build quality is very good, but the black paint on the built-in hood comes off quickly just from the touch of the plastic cap. I suggest applying a protective layer on the inside of the cap to save the paintjob on the lens(hood).

Covers more than any other lens I have ever used with a very sharp main area while corners are still perfectly acceptable. I believe this is a huge thing when it comes to a lens this wide. Overall I would highly recommend this lens, just make sure to have a decent deal on it since selling is not that easy with this lens being from a very niche segment.

Strangely, my favorite way of using this lens was with a 1.3x crop sensor camera body, resulting in better corners and a still very ultrawide angle.

I am sure that it is a great lens. While I am a fan of Canon L lenses, it is hard to justify paying 2.5x the price of Samyangs excellent 14mm f2.4 XP (NOT the cheap Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f2.8 lenses) for it though. It is slightly smaller and lighter than the Samyang XP (and a LOT smaller and lighter than the Sigma 14mm f1.8 Art) but the difference is not huge.

Obviously this Canon is AF vs the MF of the Samyang XP, but at 14mm AF is far less crucial than at longer focal lengths (due to the massive DoF at 14mm on FF), and obviously not used for astro (which is a common use case for these UWA lenses).

What is the coma like with stars on this Canon ?

martonlendvai wrote:

A great choice when it comes to picking an ultra wide lens for EF mount. Sigma alternative is significantly bigger and heavier...

...because Sigma is significantly faster (f/1.8) and way better optically.

Comparison at f/2.8 blows the Canon lens away in sharpness, CAs, lateral shading:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=454&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1121&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Moreover Sigma is sharper at f/1.8 than Canon at f/2.8. Sigma also has noticeably less lateral CA even wide opened, about 1.5 stops less peripheral shading at f/2.8, less flare and more aperture blades (9 vs. 6).

So yes, the price for such massively better optical design are size and weight, which is kind of logical.

And the best at the end: Sigma is significantly cheaper.

The build quality is very good, but the black paint on the built-in hood comes off quickly just from the touch of the plastic cap. I suggest applying a protective layer on the inside of the cap to save the paintjob on the lens(hood).

Covers more than any other lens I have ever used with a very sharp main area while corners are still perfectly acceptable. I believe this is a huge thing when it comes to a lens this wide. Overall I would highly recommend this lens, just make sure to have a decent deal on it since selling is not that easy with this lens being from a very niche segment.

Strangely, my favorite way of using this lens was with a 1.3x crop sensor camera body, resulting in better corners and a still very ultrawide angle.

I can't comment on the comparison between the Canon and the Sigma 14 f1.8, but the speed difference is big for astrophotography. I have the Sigma and love the lens. I was lucky and found a like new used copy at B&H. The lens came packaged as if new and the lens looks and feels new. The only downside is size and weight. I hope Canon comes out a L version that will compete with the Sony version in size weight and IQ. Until then I will use the Sigma.

The Sigma is the only EF lens I have left in my active kit. I do have a 70-200 f2.8 MKII, but I only use the lens for indoor sports.

I tried both Canon and Sigma and didn't experience any serious differences, just the extra aperture. Since I was not using it for astro, the size and weight did matter more than the extra stops. Naturally, this varies with user purposes. In my opinion both are great lenses with a slightly different target segment.

martonlendvai wrote:

I tried both Canon and Sigma and didn't experience any serious differences, just the extra aperture. Since I was not using it for astro, the size and weight did matter more than the extra stops. Naturally, this varies with user purposes. In my opinion both are great lenses with a slightly different target segment.

Of course that the difference in the real world usage might not be that apparent compared to a direct studio scene comparison. More over if you did not look for that.

Still looking at the not great optical performance of the Canon, its "only" f/2.8 aperture and a very high price tag, it seems to be rather mediocre lens than great lens to my taste...

Deliberately compared the two in real life situations and the Canon matched the Sigma in normal light conditions. It's my experience; I owned one for several years, I very much liked it and would buy it again.