August 01, 2014, 11:17:58 PM

Author Topic: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes  (Read 4485 times)

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2704
    • View Profile
Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« on: November 14, 2013, 10:53:35 PM »
People like to wax lyrical about how good the Nikon 14-24 is. Well at 21mm, it ain't that much better than Canon's 16-35.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/21mm-comparison.htm

Yes, that's Ken Rockwell but just look at the picture detail. The Canon and Nikon lenses are both close to unusable wide open.

Yes, it is unfair because it is pitting zooms against primes but will people please stop saying how wonderful the Nikon 14-24 is and Canon's 16-35? (This is also directed at those who would diss Zeiss primes.)

canon rumors FORUM

Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« on: November 14, 2013, 10:53:35 PM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2013, 09:50:48 AM »
Yes, that's Ken Rockwell
LOL - great line!!!  He has a few good points, I suppose, and clearly the 14-24 isn't the end all, be all zoom...nor is the 16-35 II a total piece of crap.
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13626
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2013, 09:54:50 AM »
Quote from: Ken Rockwell
The Canon looks bad because I think it mis-focused, an occasional problem with Canon's super-fast AF system. Sorry, Canon.

Using AF for a lens sharpness comparison, an occasional problem when technically incompetent people try to generate meaningful data.  Sorry, Ken.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1468
  • A Speedlight Junkie!
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2013, 11:45:24 AM »
Haha ... As always take Ken Rockwell's opinions with a rather larger fist of salt  ;D
Light is language!

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2013, 12:14:45 PM »
Quote from: Ken Rockwell
The Canon looks bad because I think it mis-focused, an occasional problem with Canon's super-fast AF system. Sorry, Canon.


Using AF for a lens sharpness comparison, an occasional problem when technically incompetent people try to generate meaningful data.  Sorry, Ken.

Wow, didn't catch the AF statement.  He's an even bigger idiot than I imagined!  To me, the only way to do it right is like the guys at SLR Gear / Imaging Resource:
http://www.slrgear.com/articles/focus/focus.htm
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

duydaniel

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2013, 02:28:23 PM »
The problem with Ken Rockwell is comparing zoom with prime

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2474
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2013, 02:37:15 PM »
The problem with Ken Rockwell is comparing zoom with prime
Actually, I think the problem was just Ken Rockwell doing anything :)
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2013, 02:37:15 PM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2089
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2013, 02:55:41 PM »
Of course the comparison is a joke. Not so much the zoom vs prime, lets face it if you want the best 135 format landscape combo that is a comparatively minor consideration. But he fails in so much else, as Neuro has pointed out you can't do lens sharpness tests with AF, that is an AF test! Nikon have moved far beyond the 12mp D700 sensor, and Canon have moved on from the 5D MkII. He states that he opened them all as the same file size, this means he used interpolation on opening, well that is not a normalser of any value, certainly not at the opening stage.

No, there are so many issues with his testing methodology, what he has managed to demonstrate is that critical manual focusing in static situationsnis better than AF, and, if you compare 12mp sensors with a good lens against 21mp sensors with a not as good lens then mess around with interpolation and make up an impressive sounding "print size" the reader can draw zero conclusions re today's achievable image making capabilities with either lens.

Anybody that doesn't think the Nikon 14-24 is comfortably better than (but not perfect) the Canon 16-35 MkII really hasn't used one.

Following on from the new lens thread last week, Canon lenses are expensive and they need to guarantee selling a good number to make the manufacturing profitable, but there must be such a pent up demand for a much better ultrawide that it would be a certain profit maker. If it wasn't for the near perfect 17 TS-E and it's ability to take a 1.4TC with practically no IQ hit I'd have to be looking to the Nikon 14-24 either via convertor or with a token D800 (which I really really don't want to do).
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

duydaniel

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2013, 03:38:19 PM »
He did a similar thing with a Leica prime vs Nikon 24-70 vs Canon 24-70 Mark I
and went one praising how "superior" the Leica was in term of sharpness

It was the biggest facepalm to me.
You need compare zoom vs zoom.

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2013, 07:40:49 PM »
Of course the comparison is a joke. Not so much the zoom vs prime, lets face it if you want the best 135 format landscape combo that is a comparatively minor consideration. But he fails in so much else, as Neuro has pointed out you can't do lens sharpness tests with AF, that is an AF test! Nikon have moved far beyond the 12mp D700 sensor, and Canon have moved on from the 5D MkII. He states that he opened them all as the same file size, this means he used interpolation on opening, well that is not a normalser of any value, certainly not at the opening stage.

No, there are so many issues with his testing methodology, what he has managed to demonstrate is that critical manual focusing in static situationsnis better than AF, and, if you compare 12mp sensors with a good lens against 21mp sensors with a not as good lens then mess around with interpolation and make up an impressive sounding "print size" the reader can draw zero conclusions re today's achievable image making capabilities with either lens.


Sure, but he did this comparison in 2009 and complains about the lack of a Nikon camera with better resolution to test the lens; so whatever other flaws the comparison may have, as a practical matter - and the point of his comparison was to show what happens if you put a particular lens on a particular body - it's obsolete.  His site is cluttered with such stuff which he ought to delete.

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2013, 07:42:53 PM »
He did a similar thing with a Leica prime vs Nikon 24-70 vs Canon 24-70 Mark I
and went one praising how "superior" the Leica was in term of sharpness

It was the biggest facepalm to me.
You need compare zoom vs zoom.

What's wrong with comparing primes to zooms?  Because everyone knows primes are better?  Perhaps - but how do they know unless they compare?  Besides, in more than one discussion here you will find people telling us how the Canon 24-70 is at least as good as a collection of primes in that range, and presumably they know that because....

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13626
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2013, 07:44:18 PM »
Quote from: sdsr
- it's obsolete.  His site ... he ought to delete.

Ok, I misquoted you.  Sorry!   ;)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

duydaniel

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2013, 08:44:28 PM »
He did a similar thing with a Leica prime vs Nikon 24-70 vs Canon 24-70 Mark I
and went one praising how "superior" the Leica was in term of sharpness

It was the biggest facepalm to me.
You need compare zoom vs zoom.

What's wrong with comparing primes to zooms?  Because everyone knows primes are better?  Perhaps - but how do they know unless they compare?  Besides, in more than one discussion here you will find people telling us how the Canon 24-70 is at least as good as a collection of primes in that range, and presumably they know that because....


Yes it's ok to do so until he drew a conclusion that therefore Leica is superior than CaNikon.
That's when I have problems

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2013, 08:44:28 PM »

Mt Spokane Photography

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 8289
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2013, 09:49:33 PM »
Comparing lenses across bodies, not to mention brands is a big no no.  Since the 14-24 has been tested on Canon bodies many times, its theoretical performance is well known.
 
Unfortunately, some of us (ME) are really poor at manual focusing, and I'll do better with even a inaccurate aurofocus when trying to focus manually using a viewfinder.  I do a fairly good job using the LCD at 5 or 10X assuming I can see it, which is also a issue in sunny weather.
 
I bought a D800 intending to get a 14-24, I bought a 24-70 2.8G, a older 80-200 f/2.8, and a 200-400 AIS.  The CA was horrible on the 24-70, the 80-200 was a fine lens, and the 200-400 had so much stiffness in the focus ring that it was unusable.  After such poor luck with $5 or 6K worth of lenses, I dumped everything before getting to test the 14-24.  Its not my first bought with quality issues and high end Nikon lenses, I had a 300mm f/2.8 that cost me $800 to get it working right.  I do have a 200-400 f/4 G VR1 and its a supurb lens.  I haven't used it on my Canon bodies due to lack of aperture control and my inability to manually focus.  The lens is excellent at f/4, so I might give it a try using liveview.
 
The only issue I've had with maybe 100 or more Canon EF lenses was a used 50mm f/1.4 that I bought used and discovered it was damaged.  That cost me the flat rate $90 repair, and then it was fine.
 
 
 

docholliday

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2013, 06:09:03 AM »
And here's how much salt I take with anything from Ken Rockwell:

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Comparing 16-35 to Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss/Leica primes
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2013, 06:09:03 AM »