The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be better than ANY Canon prime wide angle lens in this range, and it's almost but not quite as good the 21mm Distagon. I would look at it this way. If the use of an adaptor and losing AF is not a problem, I will just go with the 14-24 lens over the 21mm Distagon. The resolution of this lens is simply amazing. Check out the review in Photozone:
The Nikon 14-24 looks awfully good. Zeiss 21's do show up now and then. 16-35II is a respected performer. OM 21/3.5 gets good reviews. 17-40 isn't quite as good as most of the above, but a bargain at $600.
Another really fun and useful lens for landscapes is a 24mm shift lens. Best of these is the Oly 24/3.5.
Oh - I forgot - I have one listed on the B&S board.... (sorry - a shameless self plug - but it really is a wonderful landscape lens. 24mm straight, about 20mm with one shift, about 16mm with 2 shifts. Great optics.)
bobbytan wrote:
The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be better than ANY Canon prime wide angle lens in this range, and it's almost but not quite as good the 21mm Distagon. I would look at it this way. If the use of an adaptor and losing AF is not a problem, I will just go with the 14-24 lens over the 21mm Distagon. The resolution of this lens is simply amazing. Check out the review in Photozone:
I shot this lens on a D3 over the weekend with full anticipation that I would want to sell all my canon gear in anticipation that the D3X will make me switch to Nikon. It is an awesome lens, don't get me wrong, but I thought the CA was much stronger than on my 16-35mm II, and it did not seem to be as symmetrical as it is on my 16-35mm. If you correct the edges, the center might not be correct now. It's just by a little, but I can fully fix the CA on my 16-35mm. I really haven't had any complaints about the 16-35mm II's corner sharpness on full frame. It is a beautiful lens, but it is also overhyped a bit at the moment.
After doing some landscape shooting this weekend, I can't say enough how important the polarizer is. It helped to make several shots for me, even on the 16-35mm at full wide.
Edited by Ben Horne on Mar 18, 2008 at 12:00 AM GMT
bobbytan wrote:
The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be better than ANY Canon prime wide angle lens in this range, and it's almost but not quite as good the 21mm Distagon. I would look at it this way. If the use of an adaptor and losing AF is not a problem, I will just go with the 14-24 lens over the 21mm Distagon. The resolution of this lens is simply amazing. Check out the review in Photozone:
I love my 17-40, but recently I have been playing around with the idea of upgrading to the 16-35 II. Although I won't really utilize the 2.8 aperture, the corner sharpness certainly would help me out when shooting landscapes with the aperture stopped down.
nburwell wrote:
I love my 17-40, but recently I have been playing around with the idea of upgrading to the 16-35 II. Although I won't really utilize the 2.8 aperture, the corner sharpness certainly would help me out when shooting landscapes with the aperture stopped down.
-Nick
You might be wasting your money, at least if you shoot full frame and do landscape.
To expand on an earlier post, you _can_ certainly get fine landscape results from the 16-35mm, but the 17-40 performs as well in typical full-frame landscape shooting at smaller apertures.
David: I am a little confused about your thread. First you ask about the "best" wide angle there is and then you stated that you shoot birds. Maybe you want the wide angle for your trip to Yellowstone only?
I shoot landscapes but I use Nikon. I am very pleased with my 24mm Nikkor AIS f2.8 and this considering that I use APS format that Nikon calls DX.
The late photographer Ernst Hass was asked once which in his opinion was the best wide angle. I make often reference to this because I liked his answer. The best wide angle, he used to say, is "the one you have right now" and when necessary step forward or backward till you here a ha!
That 14mm II by Canon looks like a hell of a lens to me if that wide is what you need.
Good luck with your selection.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
Not sure why F2.8 is so important.
A depth of field calculation indicates:
F2.8 at 10Ft focus the DoF range is 3.59 to infinity and at hyper-focus (5.61) everything from 2.8 to infinity appears in focus.
F3.6 at 10ft the DoF range is 3.07 to infinity and at hyper-focus (4.46) everything from 2.23 to infinity appears in focus.
The only possible advantage for the 2/3 more F stop is exposure and even that would have minimal benefit in a landscape shot since with failing light the scene is probably causing out of range concerns already. And a tripod, everyone uses a tripod for landscape shots in bad light right, means lowering the shutter speed a bit will have fix the exposure.
bobbytan wrote:
The Nikon 14-24 is supposed to be better than ANY Canon prime wide angle lens in this range, and it's almost but not quite as good the 21mm Distagon. I would look at it this way. If the use of an adaptor and losing AF is not a problem, I will just go with the 14-24 lens over the 21mm Distagon. The resolution of this lens is simply amazing. Check out the review in Photozone:
The Nikon lens has two MAJOR problems that are deal killers in my mind.
1) There are no screw on filter options - NONE. No filter will fit that bulbous fish-eye like front glass.
2) You can't use ND grads or hand hold anything due to the design (see above) and permanently attached lens hood.
I was trying it yesterday on a D300 and it's disappointing that Nikon had no forethought for filters/landscape shooters. While it appears to be a great lens, I'd suggest anyone serious about landscapes to forget it if you want to use filters.
Jim,
I used a Lee graduate ND filter on this alternative lens in Death Valley several days back. I simply held the filter outside of the lens shade and used the LiveView option to make the adjustment. Not the most elegant solution but it did and does work. But, no, I didn't try any polarizer on it yet. BTW, this lens may not be suitable for everybody and you have to use an adapter on a Canon body. I am not a Nikon fan but at the same token, I am not married to Canon either. I don't have any problems using whatever works for what I am trying to achieve.
dmward wrote:
Not sure why F2.8 is so important.
A depth of field calculation indicates:
F2.8 at 10Ft focus the DoF range is 3.59 to infinity and at hyper-focus (5.61) everything from 2.8 to infinity appears in focus.
F3.6 at 10ft the DoF range is 3.07 to infinity and at hyper-focus (4.46) everything from 2.23 to infinity appears in focus.
The only possible advantage for the 2/3 more F stop is exposure and even that would have minimal benefit in a landscape shot since with failing light the scene is probably causing out of range concerns already. And a tripod, everyone uses a tripod for landscape shots in bad light right, means lowering the shutter speed a bit will have fix the exposure.
The 2.8 part is not important since no on who knows anything about landscape photography is going to shoot a tripod mounted landscape shot at f/2.8. However, lenses that are f/2.8 often have some optical properties that make them better even at stopped down apertures. In the case of the 16-35mm 2.8 II, extra work was done to ensure sharp corners. It is quite a bit better than the original 16-35mm, and should also be better than the 17-40mm. When I tested the original 16-35mm I vs the 17-40mm, I found that the two lenses were similar in the corners.
I think the 17-40 and 16-35II are the best options although they are different as well. The 17-40 wins on price vs performance, and the 16-35II wins on performance. The 16-35 aside from being a stop brighter, has improved lens coatings, is more resistant to flare, and has better colors, contrast, and edge sharpness. So with the 16-35, although more expensive, you can use it for landscape as well as interior/architectural photography with one lens able to cover a large spectrum of wide angle photography needs.
That is all highly theoretical, as in "the 16-35 should be best..."
Tests and reviews certainly do not generally support most of your conclusions. They do support the observation that the NEW 16-35mm f/2.8 II is better in several ways than the old version of this lens at f/2.8 but pretty similar at other apertures. They also support the observation that the 16-35 is not better than the 17-40 when used the way that these lenses are typically used by landscape photographers, in particular those using FF bodies.
The 17-40 is generally regarded as a pretty flare-resistant wide angle zoom. I challenge you to demonstrate the "better colors, contrast" of the 16-35 in side by side comparisons. The 16-35 does have better corner performance, but at the wider apertures that are very atypical for landscape. (If you are an atypical landscape photographer who shoots landscapes at f/2.8, I'll concede that the 16-35 is your lens.)
I'll also agree that if your shooting is diverse enough to include the specific areas in which the 16-35mm f/2.8 is strong there is little liability in also using it for landscape.
However, it if you are mainly getting a landscape lens and you get a 16-35mm f/2.8 with this purpose in mind you are paying a lot more for features that will likely be of no value in your landscape work.
Some dangerous assumptions about lenses include: If it costs more it must be better; if it has a larger maximum aperture it must be better; if it is bigger it must be better.
Dan
george malamis wrote:
I think the 17-40 and 16-35II are the best options although they are different as well. The 17-40 wins on price vs performance, and the 16-35II wins on performance. The 16-35 aside from being a stop brighter, has improved lens coatings, is more resistant to flare, and has better colors, contrast, and edge sharpness. So with the 16-35, although more expensive, you can use it for landscape as well as interior/architectural photography with one lens able to cover a large spectrum of wide angle photography needs.
danmitchell wrote:
Some dangerous assumptions about lenses include: If it costs more it must be better; if it has a larger maximum aperture it must be better; if it is bigger it must be better.
Dan, I don't want to get into a flame war. But if you read my post, I said that the 17-40 and the 16-35 are both the best. I think that the 17-40 is a fantastic lens which I've owned myself. To me, the 16-35 gives me more shooting options and is the reason its a part of my kit.
(sorry - a shameless self plug - but it really is a wonderful landscape lens. 24mm straight, about 20mm with one shift, about 16mm with 2 shifts. Great optics.)
