Reviews you can learn from
The May 2008 Shutterbug has a “review” of the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II, consisting of the usual warmed-over rehash of marketing materials, along with a few insightful generalities like “delivered crisp images with good color”. Uh huh, that’s got me sold on this US$2000 lens. Virtually every lens available today can meet that qualification! The reviewer is without a doubt quite ignorant about the actual performance characteristics of the 14/2.8L. Does it perturb anyone but me that there is almost no reliable and objective information in today’s photographic magazines? The one magazine I really do recommend is Photo Techniques.
As far as how the Canon EF 14/2.8L II does perform, I document those characteristics in my review, which is a screaming bargain if you’re considering the 14/2.8L II, since you’ll not only learn whether the 14/2.8L II is appropriate for you, but you’ll also understand its peculiarities, which can otherwise take time to understand.
Back to the Shutterbug review—among other gems, the reviewer bemoans the fact that “a circular polarizer can’t be accommodated”. This should be your tip-off that the “review” is another rehash of marketing materials, and that the reviewer’s photographic expertise is dubious, to put it kindly.
Maximum polarization is at 90° from the sun; away from that angle polarization drops off quickly, which leads to gradient of brightness from no change at 0° to maximal change at 90°. This is fine with lenses of 35mm focal length or so and longer, and down to about 24mm or so with careful framing, but even with a 25mm lens (see example), polarization can be “iffy” for this reason, and by 20mm it’s really inadvisable with most subjects. The Canon 14/2.8L II covers a vast 114° degrees, making its angle of view incompatible with polarization under most circumstances.