Waiting for the adaptor, I could test my 14-24-copy with a D-3:
And wow - it's corners are really amazing; two weeks ago, I tested a 16-35-II, the difference between them is very obvious, even I didn't tested scientifically.
Here's the 14-24 full image, a converted RAW at 14 mm:
http://imago.macbay.de/N14-24/D3/full.jpg
and here the extreme upper left corner; 100 % in PS, some CA is visible; but it appears in the corner's only, so no CA in the highcontrasted center. Is it normal? Interesting, that the in-camerajpgs didn't showed CA at all. Once again, the 16-35 II was on CA much worse, too.
montespluga wrote:
and here the extreme upper left corner; 100 % in PS, some CA is visible; but it appears in the corner's only, so no CA in the highcontrasted center. Is it normal? Interesting, that the in-camerajpgs didn't showed CA at all. Once again, the 16-35 II was on CA much worse, too.
If you're shooting with a D3, and not processing in CaptureNX, you will see the results of the CA removal in the JPEG's but not in the RAW's as you need to use CaptureNX to enable the D3's (and D700/D300's) CA removal automation.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm unable to restrain myself from injecting a remark:
That lens is utterly astonishing! I've only been seriously into digital photography for a couple years and haven't got a base of experience that includes the legendary German lenses, but the detail in even the corners just staggers me. Is the reason no one else has posted a comment about this, that it's nothing worthy of particular note?
What a great opportunity here: I'll get to learn in any case...
Ernie Aubert wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm unable to restrain myself from injecting a remark:
That lens is utterly astonishing! I've only been seriously into digital photography for a couple years and haven't got a base of experience that includes the legendary German lenses, but the detail in even the corners just staggers me. Is the reason no one else has posted a comment about this, that it's nothing worthy of particular note?
It's all right . . . since all my pro-Nikon posts on the subject have been deleted, I'm compelled to point out that the 14-24G is nowhere near as good as it's made out to be. Don't believe all these hyped-up images.
You should buy a proper Canon lens. The 14mm L II has much less distortion than the Nikon zoom, and it AUTOfocuses. You won't miss any shots mucking about stopping down. The L prime makes quite sharp prints at modest sizes.
At 16-24mm, you should try the Mark II 16-35mm which is also quite sharp and has astounding flare resistance. My images look great on screen at 50%. Quit worrying about corner resolution and just, you know, get out there and take pictures . . .
I agree with this and will be selling my 14-24 so I can get back my 16-35 Canon, I really miss those soft edges and not so tack sharp images. We as photographers should accept the manufacturers claims and never try to produce a product that is better. Lets hear it for the mediocre image!
I've got an idea how it performs on the wide end, but am wondering if there are any peculiarities at the long end. All I spotted were a couple of 22mm sots earlier in the thread.
The lens is best at the very wide 14-16mm range. At 24mm it is still a good performer, especially wide open, but I prefer the look of my (exceptional copy) Tamron 24/2.5 stopped down. I find myself using the lens in the 14-20mm range, where it provides a very dramatic effect:
It's a sad state, I feel for you. No use in asking because you'll get the standard "checks in the mail" response. Spend less than $1000 and get a Kodak SLR/n. It is a FF, 14mp, no AA filter camera that really shines with this lens. You can also enjoy the full compliments of the lens (AF, auto aperture,...). My samples above were done with this combo.
Gregman wrote:
How about some updated information on the Adapters - my 14-24 is gathering alot of dust
pdmphoto wrote:
It's a sad state, I feel for you. No use in asking because you'll get the standard "checks in the mail" response. Spend less than $1000 and get a Kodak SLR/n. It is a FF, 14mp, no AA filter camera that really shines with this lens. You can also enjoy the full compliments of the lens (AF, auto aperture,...). My samples above were done with this combo.
The 'cheque is not in the mail'; no news is no news: unfortunately, I'm not really allowed to discuss the adaptor here. However, they are shipping in small quantities, but demand has outstripped supply, which has been bedevilled by unreliable far-eastern manufacturer. But I guarantee that no-one who is prepared to patient will be disappointed.
Can someone point me to the website where a shim is described that props the aperture lever open on the 14-24 when a regular adapter is used? I think it was an L shaped aluminum shim.
Thanks,
Dan
danbrownphotography.com
The last middle sample looks softer than original probably because of how I am cropping and then downsampling in ps to make the small 350k file size.
How do people around here do this in order to get true 100% crops that fit the file size limit?
Thanks,
wayne
In the shot of the door, the columns on both sides are leaning toward the middle, something I wouldn't expect from 24mm. Were you super close to the scene?
dennishh wrote:
These 3 are 14-24@ 24mm f8 with crops. This is still a pretty amazing lens.
Dennis
Edited by dennishh on Aug 17, 2008 at 08:44 PM GMT
