Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              6       7       end
  

Archive 2011 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


I am trying to decide what my wife should buy me for Christmas.

I have a 17-40L F4 and 5dii. It live in the mountains and need ultra wide for 2/3 of my landscape shots. I do lots of long hikes (20km) in summer with my tripod with 17-40, 24-105.[I also have 7d, 17-55, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 IS I, 100-400 and 500F4 but that's another story.] Landscape photography is my serious hobby (addiction).

Often I find that:
17mm is too long
17-40 is not strong iq at 17mm even at f11 on edges. Usable but way better at 20mm.
17-40 is not good inside because not 2.8 (lessor importance)
but it is light, small and versatile in zoom.

I am debating buying between:
16-35L 2.8 - $1600 would be twice as fast and similar IQ
14L 2.8 - $2200 would be twice as fast and better IQ and more wide but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
TS-17 F4 - $2500 would have better IQ than all of the above but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
Nikor 14-24 2.8 $1700 with adapter - has right range, is good IQ, but no auto focus, no metering

Money is not the prime concern. In order of preference IQ = most important, 2nd/3rd is wider/versatility, and last is speed because it is for landscape.

I tried 17 TS and found it to be fussy for tilt. It would not be any wider than 17-40L.
The Nikkor 14-24 is ideal range for versatility but fussing with manual exposure might be a pain
I have read that 16-35 is similar in IQ to 17-40 but at f8,f11,f16 not much different which is 99% of my shots for depth. So only better inside on the rare occasion I use it with my 5dii. I have 17-55 for 7d..
14mm I am not as familiar with but is reputed to sharper and it would be faster and wider but not as versatile.

My impression is that Nikor 14-24 sharpest zoom. TS-17 is best IQ, then Nikkor 14-24, 14mm, and 16-35 way behind.

Any advice? Will I notice the difference between any of these and 17-40 at F8 or F11?

I am inclined toward 14-24 Nikkor for the combination of IQ and 12-24 versatility. With TS-17 in 2nd place for IQ and verstility of Tilt.

Advice appreciated. Scott

[edit - Thanks Snopchenko for the fix on 14-24]

[
------------------------------------------

Note that - I am going to buy the TSE-17.

I have decided that 14-24 is too manual, 16-35 is not much different for my shooting style than the 17-40L. And the 14L is too specific (14mm) [ditto samyang] without the benefits of tilt shift.

I really appreciate all the back and forth on this site. I learned a lot about photozone, the-digital-picture, distortion, resolution, and ca, by all the back and forth.

Much appreciated. Scott ]


Edited on Nov 30, 2011 at 03:10 AM · View previous versions



Nov 23, 2011 at 08:17 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


Hi Scott,

My wide needs are well-satisfied by a Carl Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 ZE and a Samyang 14mm f/2.8. Both are incredibly sharp and both are manual focus. The ZE is auto aperture and the Samyang is manual aperture. The Samyang is very inexpensive. The Distagon is not inexpensive, but it's a bargain nonetheless (given it's incredible IQ). Both can use a bit of 'lens correction' for 'architectural' images, and PT Lens does a fine job.

Since getting the Samyang 14/2.8 and Zeiss 21 ZE, I've sold my 17-40L and my Tokina AT-X 17/3.5 is on the 'trade' list. I won't hesitate to get a 16-35L II next year, if I start shooting events or sports, but the 24-105L handles most of my normally wide needs, for now.

Seriously, you can't beat the Distagon 21/2.8 and/or Samyang 14/2.8. You can get a lot more info on these and competing 'alternative' lenses (like the Nikkor 14-24/2.8G) on the Alternatives forum.

Cheers, Jim

P.S. I use a Voigtlander Color-Skopar 20/3.5 Asp SL II for travel, and when I'm feeling weak.

Edited on Nov 23, 2011 at 10:03 PM · View previous versions



Nov 23, 2011 at 08:42 PM
khphotography
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


Tokina 16-28 F2.8 - You'll crap your pants when you see how badly it spanks the 17-40 and the 16-35.


Nov 23, 2011 at 08:42 PM
splathrop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


You may be underestimating the value of using the shift on the 17 TS-E. I note that you say that it is no wider than the 17mm end of your zoom. That's sort of true, but the ability to shift puts it in a different context: all the width goes right where you need it. As a practical thing, it's more like using a 14mm, but delivering more pixels per pigeon, as it were. And you don't get the discouraging "tiny mountains" distortion that pointing a typical wide angle upward at the peaks produces. If I were headed into the mountains the 17 TS-E would be my choice, hands down. Also, using shift is not the least bit difficult. Level your tripod bubble, shift to compose, and shoot.

And by the way, not sure the tilt matters that much. You can certainly use it for some things, but check out the hyperfocal distance at, say f/8. Using an extremely conservative CoC of .01mm (to enable enlargements to 40 inches or more), you will have everything sharp from about 6 feet in front of the camera (closer with more standard criteria for sharpness) to infinity, without using tilt at all. And because of the oversized image circle, the sharpness goes right into the extreme corners when the lens isn't shifted.

You may encounter some field curvature issues at infinity if you focus too close. You can usually work around those by varying apertures and focal points, or you can pretty much assure it won't happen if you don't push your hyperfocal technique too hard.



Nov 23, 2011 at 09:59 PM
Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


The Nikkor starts at 14mm, FYI. Otherwise it's an interesting debate. I'm sorting through a pile of vacation photos (mostly landscape) taken with 16-35 and Sigma 14mm and neither is outright bad (OK the Sigma is odd... focusing is sometimes off the mark in dubious light, and then I get a pin sharp (in the center 2/3 of the frame anyways) handheld nightshot at f/4.5, 1/13 sec. But 16-35 is still better. Much more universal than the rest of the bunch (OK maybe Sigma 12-24 is better for some people... I'm still not ready to move).


Nov 23, 2011 at 10:10 PM
Sp12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


Samyang 14, ZE 21, and a TSE IMO.


Nov 23, 2011 at 11:47 PM
Mike K
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


Scott Stoness wrote:
I tried 17 TS and found it to be fussy for tilt. It would not be any wider than 17-40L.

My impression is that Nikor 14-24 sharpest zoom. TS-17 is best IQ, then Nikkor 14-24, 14mm, and 16-35 way behind.


Since you are talking about landscape, the TSE 17 can be easily used in the shift/stitch mode. Three shots can be quickly taken, shifting the lens and counter shifting the body. This eliminates parallax in panos as in effect the lens is stationary and the camera moves. The advantage is that the 3 shots perfectly line up in PS, no stitching software is needed to blend the seams.
The end result is a seamless, undistorted pano that is 2x the width of the normal view. To account for extreme close field perspective distortion pano software may be needed. For a 17mm lens on FF the angle of view is just over 90 degrees horizontal, so we are talking about 180 degrees wide! For examples, search DPR Canon lens forum for the user Joger. Hes got some killer views of old church interiors with the 17 TSE with shift panos.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_58/essay.html

Current L brackets and clamps from Kirk and RRS now come with index marks for this application. The 17 TSE hardly needs any tilt at all unless you are really close to the ground (focal plane). At standing height the tilt is approx. 0.5 degrees and at kneeling height is about 1.5 degrees. Thus the tilt adjustment is not very fussy until you get closer to the ground.
http://www.fototime.com/C3AAFA55AF0E6FD/standard.jpg
I would agree with your IQ ranking.



Nov 24, 2011 at 12:01 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


Yowsa!


Nov 24, 2011 at 12:03 AM
dehowie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


Easy 16-35.
It's far from way behind..has great iq twice the zoom range of the 14-24 and it works.
The barrage of garbage I've seen written about the 16-35 when compared to a lens which weighs twice as much and has half the flexibility is phenomenal.
If you want a lens you can put on a 1 series and carry it all day and have the flexibility of a zoom grab the 16-35. If you really don't need the zoom go directly to the 17t/s..



Nov 24, 2011 at 12:08 AM
Jonathan Huynh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


Dehowie wrote:
Easy 16-35.
It's far from way behind..has great iq twice the zoom range of the 14-24 and it works.
The barrage of garbage I've seen written about the 16-35 when compared to a lens which weighs twice as much and has half the flexibility is phenomenal.
If you want a lens you can put on a 1 series and carry it all day and have the flexibility of a zoom grab the 16-35. If you really don't need the zoom go directly to the 17t/s..


Yes, indeed.
Flexibility I would go with 16-35L F2.8L II
Images quality go directly TS-E 17mm F4L



Nov 24, 2011 at 12:27 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Richard Nye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


17TSE. The IQ will blow you away and the shift is really easy to use to get wider when you need it.


Nov 24, 2011 at 12:30 AM
bobbytan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


I had the Nikon 14-24 for a number of years. It is a very nice lens but MF is a real pain if you don't have a lot of time to take the picture. It's great to be shooting from a tripod and if you can MF in live view, but if you have to shoot on the fly, forget about it. Besides, it's bulky and heavy. I finally sold it and settled for the 17-40L. I reckoned that IQ-wise the 17-40L as good as the 16-35L and I really don't need the f2.8 aperture for landscapes. Plus I like the fact that it takes 77mm filters.

Edited on Nov 24, 2011 at 01:14 AM · View previous versions



Nov 24, 2011 at 12:35 AM
newseum
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


dehowie wrote:
Easy 16-35.
It's far from way behind..has great iq twice the zoom range of the 14-24 and it works.
The barrage of garbage I've seen written about the 16-35 when compared to a lens which weighs twice as much and has half the flexibility is phenomenal.
If you want a lens you can put on a 1 series and carry it all day and have the flexibility of a zoom grab the 16-35. If you really don't need the zoom go directly to the 17t/s..



Not to mention the lack of filters being easily used on the nikon.



Nov 24, 2011 at 12:56 AM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


If you want to shoot the 14-24 Nikon, then I suggest getting a D3X and shooting on the same system.

Out of your other Canon candidates, I easily choose the 16-35L II. I would pair that with the Samyang 14/2.8, or the Canon 14 if you want to spend that much on a specialty lens.

I agree with Jim, most of my shooting outdoors is handled by that 16-35, centering around 21-24mm. I tend toward multi-shot panoramas, not single awkward rectangles for ultra-wide views.

I would hate to run around with the 17 TS-E on a tripod with the exposed front element, banging through brush! It is awkward with its hood on and off, and no filter. Same for the Canon 14. The Samyang is cheap enough I wouldn't worry so much about it being exposed.

Have fun deciding!



Nov 24, 2011 at 01:20 AM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


jcolwellL: The Carl Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 ZE would be too long for me. I will read about the Samyang 14mm f/2.8. I have heard good things about it and it is cheap. Thanks. Scott

khphotography: The Tokina 16-28 F2.8 is a good suggestion. I will research it. Not much wider than 17-40 but 2.8 and sharper, sounds good. Thanks. Scott

splathrop: Maybe I should rent the 17TSE again. I tried to use it in the dark setting up for sunrise and found it to be hard to focus and most of my pictures came out blurred. I thought about not using the tilt and sticking to f8/f11 but concluded lots of money not to use it. But maybe the shift might be more useful than the tilt and I did not give it a good try. My conclusion was steep learning curve to use it well and risk of blowing a good scene with a bad setting. Thanks. Scott




Nov 24, 2011 at 02:12 AM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


Snopchenko: Thanks - 14 !!! to 24 - thanks - fixed. My favorite landscape photographer uses 5dii and 14-24 (Marcus Adamus) and I figured if it works for him it must be good. The reviews I have read suggest it is the best ultra wide zoom available. The 16-35 is a good lens but at F4 not any better for IQ than 17-40 from what I have read. So although better than 17-40 (f2.8 and 1mm on wide) it would not be dramatic, so its last on my list for IQ. Thanks Scott

Sp12: Samyang 14, ZE 21, and a TSE IMO. I can't carry all that. But TS17 and Samsung 14 might be possible. I think I will rent the TS again. Thanks Scott

Mike K: Good points. I am stitching now with the 17-40L so that would not be new. If TS17 is best maybe that is appropriate. Particularly as pointed out above that shift might be better than I thought. Thanks Scott



Nov 24, 2011 at 02:22 AM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


dehowie: 16-35 is a good lens but the iq from what i have read is not much different than 17-40. For carrying all day, I use the 24-105 or 17-40. It does not feel like much of an upgrade unless I want to use it indoors.? Thanks Scott

Jonathan Huynh: Okay my wife would likely choke me for both. I am thinking if I am primarly outdoors 16-35 is not much of an upgrade on 17-40L. So TS17. Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. Scott

Richard Nye: Thanks for the input. TS17 is tempting. Scott



Nov 24, 2011 at 02:27 AM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


bobbytan: I agree that 17-40 L is a fail safe lens and likely the 16-35 would be too. Set it at f11 near infinity on manual and it always works. Thats what makes me nervous about TS17 and 14-24, lots of fussing and mostly I am in the dark waiting for the sun. I dont use filters - CP screws up the sky in an ultra wide (1/2 blue 1/2 not) and I use 3 autobrackets/blending/hdr to avoid fussing with filters. Thanks Scott

newseum: I don't use filters, I use multiple expsures and blending. So filters not an issue. Thanks Scott

Gunzorro: If the 14-24 is the best zoom and it works on 5dii why buy the d3x. D3x will not work with my 500F4, or any others. 16-35, 17ts, and Samyang 14 might be the right choice but thats too much. Maybe 17-40, TS17 and samyang 14. Thats an (expensive) thought. I hear you about 14 and TS17 being scary with stick out parts. Good advice. Scott



Nov 24, 2011 at 02:37 AM
Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


Anyone have thoughts on 14L ? Would you choose it over the 17TS?


Nov 24, 2011 at 02:38 AM
Rajan Parrikar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24


Scott Stoness wrote:
Anyone have thoughts on 14L ? Would you choose it over the 17TS?


They are very different lenses. I have both, and find the TS-17 to be much more versatile. It can handle interior/exterior architecture and landscape. The 14LII is a fine optic, one that I use in special situations. If I had to pick only one, it would be the TS-17. But the call has to be based on your specific shooting needs and style.



Nov 24, 2011 at 02:44 AM
1
       2       3              6       7       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              6       7       end
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password