Am considering buying this lens and would appreciate any user comments about function, clarity, detail, depth of field issues and general usefulness as "the" wide angle lens i use other than the FD35-105, 3.5...(all my lenses are 72mm) camera is F1.. expect outdoor use in high alpine & desert mountains in winter and summer. is this a strong, solid, reliable useful lens? thanks, John, Modesto, California

-- john t fusselman (fusselman@yahoo.com), January 12, 2000

Answers

John,

Sorry, while I envy your getting this lens, I have never used it.

But considering the performance of the other L series lenses, it will be awesome.

WRT depth of field, it will be the same as any 14 mm lens, meaning, it will have LOTS. As to general usefulness, I would probably get the 20-35 f3.5 L zoom first, or some primes and see if you want wider.

The 20-35 zoom is also a 72mm filter size.

-- Terry Carraway (TCarraway@compuserve.com), January 13, 2000.

I have this lens, it is worn, big, heavy, takes to much place in my bag. I would do better with a 24/2.0 because of this. But I have not tried to put any high speed film and used it in any low-light situations, like the pub we go to after every cameraclub meeting.

The pictures taken with this lens are sharp, crisp, every positive word - but the lens does not make me a better photographer.

It is probably easier to focus with than the 2.0, but for the sake of viewfinder brightness, it is sufficient with 2.8.

The worn lens is still working, but you might mature one day and start shooting other things than nature :-) - get the smallest lens you can cope with - my 50-135/3.5 is my slowest lens. My flashes only cover 24mm (300TL and 577G) so I do not go to any further wide angles (except perhaps the used 14/3.5 Sigma for $400.

-- Cyvind Dahle (odahle@start.no), October 27, 2000.