I'm really intrigued by this Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED N lens for my Canon 1DsIII. The problem I think is that there are no adapters available today for the EOS. If I'm wrong please correct me. I'd love to see some images with this lens on a Canon 1D/5D!
Pesonally, I have no interest in a Nikon lens on my Canon stuff, have no compelling reasons to do so. Do some seaches and that will answer many questions.
Edited by Shane Canfield on Mar 21, 2008 at 02:19 AM GMT (Reason: To delete many commnets, a lot of the original post was not at all nice)
bobring wrote:
I'm really intrigued by this Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED N lens for my Canon 1DsIII. The problem I think is that there are no adapters available today for the EOS. If I'm wrong please correct me. I'd love to see some images with this lens on a Canon 1D/5D!
Do a search as already suggested. Lot's of threads and discussion about this. Lots of adapters too.
Yeah, that might be my reaction too should I have read that from a genuine inquiry point of view.
My apologies to you and anyone else offended by my post. I'm no doubt over the top with my little diatribe (just kind of bubbled out. I deleted most of my original post which you reacted to because is was not even close to nice to you or others.
...especially since I don't know you so again, sorry about that...but love your comment!
The best option is either by Zeiss or Leica with an adapter (go to alternate systems, look for Guy M. 2000 post thread) be prepared to pay an arm and 2 legs, this will be the ultimate setup for landscapes (not in my price range however).
Next best option is either the 17-40F4L (I have a great copy) or the 16-35LmkII, at the time I opted for a 17-40F4L.
No problem Shane. I'm just trying to determine the best lenses for my new 1DsIII (have a 5D). In particular, from a wide angle aspect. Wishing Canon would just update their 20mm fixed focal length lense (kind of like the 85mm f1.8....non-L to the 1.2L). That would be sweet.
BTW, sold all of my Nikon stuff years ago & switched to Canon so the thought of having to put a Nikkor lens on my Canon does not appeal to me!
Brent Ward wrote:
Shane,
Have you ever used a cz21 and seen what a print looks like compared to the canon glass?
There's no comparison...
No, have not used one nor seen a comparison side by side with enlarged prints so cannot comment. Only on the Nikons, which is where my experience and comments are directed. I was a Nikon shooter for a long time and moved to Canon a few years ago...my last Nikon body was a D2H. Still have my old FT-2 tho and a few lenses from the 1970s.
I'll take your word for it...maybe someday I can see some side-by-side prints, that would be interesting.
Would also love to do some large format stuff too...just only so much money in the budget and since I shoot many venues and styles, have to consider equipment that fits more than just one type of shooting...I'm already in the many, many, many thousands, ugh...oh to have bottomless pockets.
I realize this question may be off-topic, but I'm somewhat confused and I need a straight answer. In what situation would the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II lense be good to use as a result of the f/2.8 feature?
I've yet to feel the need to upgrade to the 16-35II I'm perfectly happy with my mkI version. I've been using it everyday on my trip that I'm on down here in New Zealand with some awesome results.
I would recommend the mkII version for someone who doesn't have one yet. But for myself, I see no real reason to upgrade.
If you don't mind manual focus, someone here was raving about the Zuiko 18/3.5 a while ago. Here's a report on its performance relative to some better-known lenses:
f2.8 is usefull for indoor/architectural/low light/event photography. So in effect the 16-35 is a little more versatile in that it can be used for indoor low light stuff (although a fast prime should be better) as well as landscapes.
danmitchell wrote:
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.
---SNIP--
In this context the 17-40 could be said to have some specific advantages over the 16-35, though I'll stipulate ahead of time that the actual value of some of them might be limited. Some landscape photography advantages of the 17-40:
1. Smaller and lighter (not insignificant to some of us who do this work on foot, and sometimes on long backcountry trips.)
2. Less expensive.
3. Slightly (though certainly marginally) sharper at least in the center.
4. Wider focal length range.
5. Works as well into the corners when stopped down for typical landscape use.
Again, this is aimed back at the OP who asked specifically about landscape use. ...Show more →
Dan, I have to disagree with you. Have you tried all these lens and made up you own mind from 1st hand knowledge? I have. I have owned 2 copies of the 17-40, a copy of the 16-35 MKI (and used a friend's copy), a CZ21 (still have it and it's the best IQ) a OM18 (great lens and very small), and a new 16-35 MKII. Of all the ones I tested the 17-40's were the worst IQ - sorry, but that was my findings especially in the corners. However, for the cost they were very good and if the OP asked for the "BEST VALUE" that would be the answer.
The OP didn't ask for that he asked for the "BEST". In my book it's the 16-35MKII. the CZ21/OM18 are primes and as such are limited in versatility. The 16-35MKII range is great, but I typically only use it 16-24mm as I use a 24-70 above that. Don't under value the F2.8. Having a bright viewfinder in low light situations is very important in landscape work. I shoot in low light a lot during twilight and the extra stop is very important to compose and manually focus. AF is of less importance in landscape work. To say the 16-35MKII adds no value is simply incorrect. Landscape shooter's buy F2.8 simply for that reason.
I my book the 16-35 MKII is the best - it has the most points going or it.
drisley wrote:
Nice, just goes to prove don't believe all the hype in the nikon camp.
The 16-35II sounds so nice.
Much of this so called hype ( which I don't believe is hype at all ) is coming from the Canon camp. I've read through multiple reviews of this lens, and everyone is blown away by the lens. For landscapes, it just might be the perfect lens. I manually focus my landscape shots anyway to take advantage of the DOF, so having to manually focus the Nikon is no big whoop.
Another vote for the 16-35Lf2.8 II from me. In case no-one has mentioned it yet: f2.8 means you have the highest AF-precision available, in addition to the obvious f-stop advantage.
David Vaughn wrote:
I'm taking a trip to Yellowstone and would like the "best" wide angle for landscapes. Assume money is not an issue with any of the 3 lenses I'm thinking about below, and assume this lens will go on a full frame sensor. I've read some glowing reports about the 24mm prime, but the "buzz" seemed to be about shooting indoors in low light. I don't shoot indoors, and have no desire to. I've owned the 24-105, which I liked, but isn't wide enough; I've owned the 17-40 which was a little soft in my opinion. I was thinking about the 24 prime, the 16-35 II, and the 17-55 2.8. I like the concept of the extra range of the 17-55, but I'm not sure its up to par with the other two, since it isn't a pro lens. I realize that I will only use this lens about 5% of the time based on what I typically shoot (birds), but there are some beautiful places where birds hang out, and when I shoot a landscape I want a photograph, not a picture.
I am fine now getting any lens between 24mm and 50mm anywhere and than stitch landscapes shots wider. Effect you could never get with any super wide lens.
