Wide

I've had the Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 wide angle zoom for longer than I've had a DSLR, 24 years. The lens did not have a great reputation and Canon has come out with replacements several times. (Its current descendent is a 16-35mm f/2.8 that sells for $1,999.) But for all that time it was the widest lens I had, so I would get it out when I needed to shoot wide. Recent real estate interiors convinced me I could use something even wider, but rather than invest in Canon's expensive zoom that would only get me to 16mm, I got a 14mm f/2.8 Samyang for a fraction of the price. The old lens is going on eBay.

In comparing the Canon to the Samyang, I have three immediate conclusions: 14mm is noticeably wider than 17mm, the Samyang is a decent lens, but the "L" glass in the Canon produces more vibrant colors. On that last point, that's what Photoshop is for.

One quirk of the Samyang and one way they hold down cost is it is manual focus. However, there is enough circuitry built into it so the DSLR will confirm when it is in focus. With a wide angle lens and an f/stop of about 8, focus is not nearly as critical as with, say, a 500mm lens wide open at f/4. The first project I have in mind for the 14mm is star trails from my back yard. If the sky is relatively clear, I might try that tonight. Anyway, here is a comparison of the old and the new lenses, Photoshopped to make up for some of that color discrepancy.

Old 17-35mm

New 14mm

And as if one new lens wasn't enough, I also got a new lens for my M100 mirrorless. The M-series has been discontinued by Canon, but I still use my 7-year-old M100 when I want something smaller but still more capable than my phone or the old 10mp Canon S95. I've had my eye on the 22mm (35mm equivalent) f/2 for quite a while, and finally pulled the trigger. For the most part, camera manufacturers seem to have abandoned the small camera field to the the phone manufacturers, so I decided to take this route for now. Maybe in a year or two I will get a phone with a much better camera than I have now. The below image was taken with a different sun angle than the previous two, but the difference in focal length is apparent, 14mm vs. 17mm vs. 35mm. The 35mm length is considered ideal for street photography, and getting this $199 lens for my M100 instead of a $6,000 Leica that is about the same size seemed like a good idea. We'll see how much I use it. The specs state it has a 0.49-foot macro distance, so that might be useful. I think the 0.49-foot (six-inch) spec is from the subject to the sensor. I measured only about four inches from the front of the lens to the subject. One word: flowers.

One thing I noticed immediately is there is no autofocus switch, so it is impossible to focus manually. Physically, it is slightly bigger than I thought it would be, but much more pocketable than the 15-45 kit lens. The camera/lens combo is bigger than the S95 which has a 28-105mm equivalent zoom, but the advantage of the M100 is it has more pixels, 24mp vs. 10Mp. Within the limitations of the fixed 35mm equivalent, it should produce much better images than the S95.

Here I'm testing out the macro. This is a sunflower that is about to bloom inside a cage that keeps the deer out. I would say it is good, not great. I'll have to try my real macro lens on this. But, judging from the work of most so-called street photographers, being able to parse every hair on a sunflower isn't a priority.