Plieku69 wrote:
Adorama has a nice used one at a decent price.
I would like a lens in this focal length for product photography, I can position the camera closer to the subject than a 50mm.
but, I have never heard of the brand. Is it any good?
Ken
Actually, you should ignore K. Rockwell's commentary about this lens for a couple reasons.
First, the Bower 14/2.8 is actually a Rokinon/Samyang lens and is sold under a bunch of different brand names. You'll also find it sold as a Vivitar 13mm f2.8, as well as 14mm Pro Optic (Adorama's house brand), Dot Line and probably some others I'm forgetting. Anyway, it's the same lens... and is strictly manual focus and manual aperture.
Contrary to K. Rockwell's thinking, a lot of people are using this lens quite successfully, to make great images. It's not "perfect", by any means, but it's a whole lot cheaper than the alternatives. Canon's own EF 14/2.8L costs 5X or 6X as much and their TS-E 17/4L Tilt-Shift runs about 8X or 10X as much!
The Rokinon/Samyang/Bower/etc. 14/2.8 is typically quite sharp, has good color rendition and is reasonably flare resistant for such a wide lens.
One of it's biggest "problems" is distortion: It has fairly strong, complex "mustache" distortion. That can be a problem with certain types of photos... particularly architectural. But, it's also possible to correct it to some extent in post-processing. There are "lens profiles" for some of the more common post-processing software, specifically for this lens. This might not be necessary, though, for someone shooting landscapes or other types of photos where the distortion isn't really an issue.
Not surprisingly considering it's cost, it's also not as well built as the premium-quality Canon lenses. And, there appear to be some quality control issues. It's not uncommon for buyers to find they got a "bad copy" that has uneven sharpness, probably due to a de-centered element, and need to exchange the lens in hopes of getting a better one. It's not always the case, but happens enough that you should always buy from a reputible dealer who allows exchange or returns (such as Adorama), make it a point to test the lens immediately when you receive it, and be prepared to go through the hassle of the exchange/return process if necessary. Take some test shots with the lens at max aperture, focused to various distances, and see if there is softness on one side of the image or the other.
Maybe K. Rockwell got a "bad copy" that he tested and didn't go through the exchange process, which is actually rather well-documented by other users of the lens. It's just "the cost", to get a bargain priced lens.
Another "cost", which might have been part of K. Rockwell's bad review, is that the lens is manual focus and manual aperture. Now, with an ultrawide such as this, depth of field is so great that manual focus probably isn't an issue for most people. You might need to use Live View and it's magnified view capabilities for more critical focus situations, especially if focused close and using a large aperture.
Manual aperture may be a problem for some people too. However, so long as it's a "chipped" lens (which I think it is, not aware if they make or ever made an "unchipped" version in Canon mount), you should also be able to use Av auto exposure mode, in addition to M. You won't be able to use Tv, P or any of the "Scene Modes" your camera might offer.
Note: "Chipped" manual focus/aperture lenses have a set of contacts on the rear, similar to those on Canon EF/EF-S lenses. However, these "chips" don't provide any means of focusing or adjusting the aperture, or even enable the camera to display what aperture has been set. All they do is tell the camera that there's a lens installed, which allows use of Av (aperture priority auto exposure) and Focus Confirmation feature of Canon cameras In all cases where I've used them, with "chipped" lenses the camera must be set to One Shot prior to installing the lens... while a fully compatible EF/EF-S lens is still on the camera. You cannot change the camera's focus mode, when there is no lens or when a "chipped" lens is installed. And, even if a lens isn't chipped, it's possible to buy the chips separately and install them yourself (with some epoxy and care!).
You specifically mention wanting the lens to do product photography. The "mustache" distortion of this lens might be a problem, at best requiring more image post-processing work. But I question needing such an ultrawide lens in general, for that type of work. Especially for small products and close work, virtually any 14mm (or 17mm, for that matter) is going to have fairly strong perspective exaggeration, which I personally wouldn't want with most product photography.
With crop cameras, for small product photography I use TS-E 45mm (also manual focus, though the aperture is not)... or 60mm or 100mm macro lens with especially small items. For full frame cameras and particularly small items, I've also used TS-E 90mm.
Another third party ultrawide is the Laowa Venus 15mm f4 Macro lens. Like the Canon TS-E lenses, this has some shift movement available, which can partially correct perspective keystoning effect, for example. That might be useful for product or architectural subjects. This lens is also manual focus and manual aperture only. It doesn't have the tilt correction movement, that the Canon TS-E lenses do. If you Google it, you'll find some reviews and sample photos done with this lens. It's relatively new on the market. The Venus Laowa 15mm can use a standard, screw-in 77mm filter (the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower/etc. 14mm cannot, nor can the Canon 14/2.8L, both due to strongly convex front lens elements). Some reviews of the 15mm lens suggest it's useful for macro and small products, but less so for architecture because it's not sharp enough in the corners and at the edges, especially if use on full frame. It's a little, but not a lot more expensive than the Rokinon/etc. 14mm lens.
Some years ago both Tamron and Sigma made 14mm f2.8 lenses in various mounts, including Canon EOS/EF. You might come across them pretty cheap, if you are shopping used. Basically, there's a fairly simple reason they both were discontinued: Their image quality was terrible. The Rokinon/etc. is much, much better... even if it ain't perfect.
In my opinion, Mr. Rockwell can be too judgmental, too quick to dismiss things or do the opposite and get overly enthusiastic about minor details, or simply be too lazy to go beyond the obvious or basics in his reviews. The info he compiles on products can be useful, often includes more details and observations than can be found anywhere else... But his hands-on testing and opinions about products often leave a whole lot to be desired. Read em, but only with a grain of salt. (And read others, such as dpreview.com and the-digital-picture.com, for more comprehensive and well-balanced testing and opinions. Personally I like to read actual user reviews at Adorama, B&H, Amazon, etc., too.)