Canon 14-24 2.8 - With our powers combined....

[Rienzphotoz]

so...I'll just make do with the 16-35, which is still a great lens. 

Ex.  70-200 2.8L II .....I don't care who you are or what you shoot on...hands down, this is the best ( and I mean THE BEST) 70-200 lens out there in this focal range. 

Anyways, everyone have a great labor day weekend.  I'm going to start getting ready for a wedding i'm photographing today.

J

Yes, 16-35 is a great lens ... I am pretty happy with it until Canon releases 14-24 ... and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is the awesomest lens in its range across any brand.

[Chuck Alaimo]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/399059_10151055149808907_67379444_n.jpg

not sure if that link will make it through, but seeing neal's work with the 14-24 is just wow...obviously he's doing a whole lot in PP but still, that lens is just amazing...the 16-35 is good...but the 14-24 nikkor is great/amazing...  I want I want I want!!!!!!

[fotografnuntaiasi]

"however i'd love to see a 12-24 like sigmas, only sharper!"

Yap, like Sigma but with some precise focus..otherwise....will be a nikkor

[gnd]

Canon should have a look on how many photographers holding canon full frame cameras with a nikon 14-24 sticked into it.

Nikon 14-24 on a Canon DSLR? 

Yeap:

[gnd]

And speaking of Sigma I prefer it than this:

  (Ok, a bit off-topic just for fun)

[sarangiman]

Haven't looked back since I started using this combo (Novoflex adapter... cheap Chinese adapters off eBay couldn't achieve infinity focus & rattled):



I got tired of trying to find a 16-35 or 17-40 that had good edge-to-edge performance even at f/11 or did not have decentering issues.

[Aglet]

Haven't looked back since I started using this combo (Novoflex adapter... cheap Chinese adapters off eBay couldn't achieve infinity focus & rattled):

I got tired of trying to find a 16-35 or 17-40 that had good edge-to-edge performance even at f/11 or did not have decentering issues.

+1
17-40mm f/4 L is great on crop but sux on FF if you're looking for corner detail at the wide end.

I was considering the Novoflex adapter, balked at the price for the first round of experiments with old F-mount glass.
How does the aperture control work?  Are there any detents in it at all or just friction?..

[sarangiman]

+1
17-40mm f/4 L is great on crop but sux on FF if you're looking for corner detail at the wide end.

I was considering the Novoflex adapter, balked at the price for the first round of experiments with old F-mount glass.
How does the aperture control work?  Are there any detents in it at all or just friction?..

Not even corner detail, but side detail around the middle of the frame, even extending significantly in from the edge, can be soft all the way to f/11... and on some copies not even clear up by f/11 (at which point diffraction softens the image).

The Novoflex is (sadly) worth the money. The aperture control is that blue dial you see. It has quite a bit of friction, since I didn't remove the rubber seal on the 14-24. No, no detents, but there are some indicators that generally tell you where ~f/4, f/11, & f/22 are. Or something like that. I can't remember... I calibrated it once. I just guess; I don't need much precision... I usually want to just shoot it wide open, or at ~f/8-f/11, or higher if I want gorgeous sunstars (which I can easily see via Live View, which you have to use to focus the lens anyway).

I wouldn't use this lens for event photography though, for obvious reasons!

[Aglet]

Not even corner detail, but side detail around the middle of the frame, even extending significantly in from the edge, can be soft all the way to f/11... and on some copies not even clear up by f/11 (at which point diffraction softens the image).

The Novoflex is (sadly) worth the money. The aperture control is that blue dial you see. It has quite a bit of friction, since I didn't remove the rubber seal on the 14-24. No, no detents, but there are some indicators that generally tell you where ~f/4, f/11, & f/22 are. Or something like that. I can't remember... I calibrated it once. I just guess; I don't need much precision... I usually want to just shoot it wide open, or at ~f/8-f/11, or higher if I want gorgeous sunstars (which I can easily see via Live View, which you have to use to focus the lens anyway).

I wouldn't use this lens for event photography though, for obvious reasons!

Thanks for the info on the Novoflex adapter. I may consider it if for the future.

my 17-40 is a decent copy altho has a bit softer R side on the borders/edge when opened up.
at the wide end it cleans up quickly above f/8 but you only have until about /16 before diffraction softening starts to show up too.
Still, overall a disappointing lens on FF unless the only thing with textural detail is in the middle 2/3s of the frame.
It's time for an update on that old thing.

I was hoping the Tokina 17-35mm would be better.  Haven't seen any detailed tests yet so not about to order one since it's not much cheaper.
Then again, there is Nikon's 17-35mm f/2.8 - certainly a little better in border-corner performance than the 17-40mm.  Their slower 16-35mm VR is also a bit better.
I've got a chance to buy a nice 17-35 so need to do some chart-checkin.'

Would sure like a new 16-35 or 16-40 f/4 that performs well in the corners - for either mount.

[sarangiman]

at the wide end it cleans up quickly above f/8 but you only have until about /16 before diffraction softening starts to show up too.

Well, you're lucky. The 17-40s I tested just never cleaned up satisfactorily until diffraction set in. One lens I had actually was repaired by Canon... when I got it back, it did clean up by ~f/8. I let it sit around without touching it or moving it for a few months. Next time I put it on, it was decentered terribly again. In my opinion there's just something wrong with the design of those ultra-wide zooms. Maybe they just do need the large bulbous front element a la the Nikon 14-24 to get sharp edge-to-edge sharpness... and of course that comes with its own set of issues (that I, personally, would put up with).

I tested the Tokina on my 5D Mark III & was not impressed. I briefly tested a Nikon 16-35 on my 5DIII & it seemed to perform respectably, but not as well as the Nikon 14-24. That being said, it may be worthwhile to revisit the 16-35 & really assess its edge-to-edge performance b/c the 77mm filter thread makes it extremely convenient for landscapes... ND filters, polarizers, grads, etc... all of which you *especially* need when shooting with the limited DR of Canon sensors.

One thing that bothers me about the 16-35 is the VR which, of course, wouldn't be engaged on a Canon body. I just feel like image stabilization adds more elements which translates to more chances of decentering/misalignment, etc. Perhaps I'm being paranoid?

[Invertalon]

I would LOVE a 14-28 f/2.8... Would be amazing offering by Canon.

I have faith they would be able to tackle flare issues... I mean, I rented the 8-15L and I could not get that lens to flare one bit, even pointed directly in the sun. I know they are different, but it still has a bulbous front element and captures everything no matter where you point it. I think Canon has some amazing coatings, plus the felt material they use all over now inside to prevent reflections. I noticed inside the 8-15L front element, it looks like the felt is laid perpendicular to the lens orientation, around the element inside of it... Hard to explain, but they do a lot to prevent flare issues.

I probably would not like the price though... But imagine a 14-28 f/2.8, 24-70 II and 70-200 II trio... Mmmmm.

[Aglet]

Well, you're lucky. The 17-40s I tested just never cleaned up satisfactorily until diffraction set in...

I seem to get inconsistent results with mine, if I look more closely.
Sometimes, at f/8-f/11 or even 16 I'm getting really decent corner sharpness and other times it's mush.
It seems, maybe that the times I'm getting good corner results the corners are only a few meters away, with the central subject at a similar distance.  At longer distances it's very soft.

I tested the Tokina on my 5D Mark III & was not impressed. I briefly tested a Nikon 16-35 on my 5DIII & it seemed to perform respectably, but not as well as the Nikon 14-24. That being said, it may be worthwhile to revisit the 16-35 & really assess its edge-to-edge performance b/c the 77mm filter thread makes it extremely convenient for landscapes... ND filters, polarizers, grads, etc... all of which you *especially* need when shooting with the limited DR of Canon sensors.

My Nikonian friend is intent on the 16-35 VR
I just picked up a very clean used Nikon 17-35/2.8 and will begin comparing it to my 17-40/4L in some hopefully controlled situations, each lens on their native bodies (D800 and 5D2) and eeking out the max I can from each one.  The loser gets listed on Kijiji.

One thing that bothers me about the 16-35 is the VR which, of course, wouldn't be engaged on a Canon body. I just feel like image stabilization adds more elements which translates to more chances of decentering/misalignment, etc. Perhaps I'm being paranoid?

I tend to agree. The more there is, the more there is to cause problems.  Tamron's very decent 17-50/2.8 is an example of a good lens that went not-so-good with the addition of VC.

I love using some of my stabilized lenses for handheld walk-around shooting but when I'm on a tripod I prefer the best lens I have available for the job, usually a prime or a good performing stabilized zoom.  If I'm taking the time to mount on a tripod, I'm also taking the time to get the best from my equipment in other ways.

None of the zooms I've looked at in this range are particularly good at FF border-corner performance tho.
I think Samyang's 14mm prime actually outperforms the Nikon 14-24 in the corners too, but at the expense of significant distortion in the central area which could be an issue if shooting stuff with straight lines.  Water/horizons might be a problem in landscapes.  14-24/2.8 is working nicely enough otherwise, I'm really enjoying that WIDE end!

[sarangiman]

It seems, maybe that the times I'm getting good corner results the corners are only a few meters away, with the central subject at a similar distance.  At longer distances it's very soft.

Right, that's the whole problem with wide-angle lenses. Small shifts in elements changes the actual focal plane in focus tremendously. Ideally, you want only the plane you're trying to focus on in focus across the field of view. The short focal lengths & high effective refractive indices of wide angle lenses necessitate small tolerances on lens focal plane/sensor parallel alignment. If anything is slightly off, a whole different plane will come into focus on the relevant portion of the sensor.

Remember also lens manufacturers attempt to correct for field curvature to a certain extent; how well they do this probably also affects how well the lens can keep only the plane in focus.

I usually test wide angle lenses by shooting a horizon (near infinity). Although in lots of wide-angle photography, you do actually want both something near & far in focus, with whatever that is near typically more on the edges of the frame, you don't want the scenario where your nearby object happens to be on the edge of your frame where your lens actually focuses better *beyond* the focal plane you've focused on!

So are you shooting w/ the Nikon 14-24 on your Canon? If so, what adapter are you using?

[Aglet]

So are you shooting w/ the Nikon 14-24 on your Canon? If so, what adapter are you using?

I decided to get D800s instead of an F<>EF adapter. 

Even before the WA zooms, my main issue with my landscape and other shots was not being able to push up shadows from my 5D2 without showing pattern noise.
The low (pattern) noise from the D800 is really appreciated and the extra MP come in handy too.

I've got one foot solidly in both camps right now and, if the new 6D doesn't show some serious improvement in DR and low ISO pattern noise I'll slowly be withdrawing from the Canon camp.  Might keep the 5D2 just to continue using some Canon glass I like.

[sarangiman]

Oh, sure, if you're a landscape shooter I see no reason to stick with Canon save for its TS-E lenses.

D800's >2 extra stops of pixel-level DR (and more normalized DR) is game changing for landscape photographers. Combine that with good graduated ND filters & you'll probably almost never have to HDR stuff.

Reason I'm not switching yet is b/c the 5D Mark III's focus accuracy/precision for <f/2 shallow DOF shots is pretty awesome. Precision on the D800 is great as well, but I'm trying to quantitate exact accuracy/precision before I decide which system works better for wedding/people photography. I've found a strange phenomenon with Nikon body/lenses in terms of focus accuracy at fast apertures, which I do not see on the Canon. Trying to confirm then publish my findings.

Do you use filters with your 14-24? 6x9 filters get incredibly expensive...