Not me, I wan't it for better corner resolution on a 1DsIII. My other L zooms (24-105 and 16-35) are far from perfect. My future include lenses which are optimal at f/5.6. This way my 1DS4 at (50 megapixels?) won't be diffraction limited.
Also for night shots with movement, f/1.4 would be handy. IS is worthless if anything moves as you know.
markymarc wrote:
How many folks are also interested in the 24LII because of its even shorter minimal focus distance? The MFD should open up new creativity.
That is a powerful reason for me to buy this lens. Narrow dof already lends itself to incredible artistic possibilities........but.........adding a shorter minimal focusing distance makes it that much more versatile.
Kim Bentsen wrote:
Not me, I wan't it for better corner resolution on a 1DsIII. My other L zooms (24-105 and 16-35) are far from perfect. My future include lenses which are optimal at f/5.6. This way my 1DS4 at (50 megapixels?) won't be diffraction limited.
Also for night shots with movement, f/1.4 would be handy. IS is worthless if anything moves as you know.
bmstudios wrote:
Wouldn't the Canon 14mm 2.8L II make a nice wide landscape lens?
It suuuuure does. I would put it head to head against the 14-24 nikor any day... AT 14mm obviously. Yes, it can be too wide sometimes. Hence the 24mm or Zeiss 21mm would make excellent companions.
Sean Mills wrote:
It suuuuure does. I would put it head to head against the 14-24 nikor any day... AT 14mm obviously. Yes, it can be too wide sometimes. Hence the 24mm or Zeiss 21mm would make excellent companions.
The 14 2.8 mk2 will kick serious 14 - 24 butt in the WOW factor department. Colors, contrast, saturation, brightness , vignetting, will be better on the Canon prime, the only serious thing where Nikon will take the edge : corners and edge sharpness. And also cost and cost quality ratio definitely goes to the Nikon zoom : for the price of the prime (or even cheaper) you get superb prime-like resolution, sharpness and distortion correction in the incredibly convenient 14-24 zoom package. But this doesn't translate into overall spectacular IQ quality - this is still Canon territory at 14 mm (: . That's why I personally opted for the Canon prime and I'm eagerly waiting also for the 24 1.4 mk2 to arrive (:.
Tom K:
Here are some pics of the LEE filter rig first on a Canon lens...and then on some 14-24G's. Note that with the 14-24G's petal shaped (and fixed) hood some light can enter from the sides where the LEE adapter attaches. The pics here show how some users have solved that issue using foam or PVC sleeves. A LEE rep told me that some users just use a woman's hair 'scrunchie' to cover the small openings.
I have been without a FF camera for a while awaiting the 5D2...but now that it has arrived, I plan on experimenting with various filter set-ups on my 14-24G to see what I can come up with for a solution.
*I have saved these images from various threads here and there. They are not mine...and I am using them without permission. I don't know who they belong to - but if they are yours, and you want them removed...no worries.
*Sorry all - I am not trying to hijack this thread about the 24LII. I am as interested in the 24LII lens as anyone, and will probably end up with one if the reviews are good. I just wanted to address Tom's questions.
Cheers,
Scott
Nazdravanul:
You state that, "The 14 2.8 mk2 will kick serious 14 - 24 butt in the WOW factor department. Colors, contrast, saturation, brightness , vignetting, will be better on the Canon prime".
With all due respect,
Is that subjective opinion or have you actual done a side by side comparison under the same shooting conditions? Or can you point us to a competent review that has conclusively demonstrated your claim?
I like the way that canon primes render images myself, and could make the same assumption that you are. But I would like to see proof.
I haven't heard anyone yet complain about the 14-24G's "Colors, contrast, saturation, brightness , vignetting". But I am willing to learn if you can point me to a resource where that has been documented.
Even if true...can't those issues be largely addressed in PP?
I'm not trying to start a pissing contest here...just being a bit of a devil's advocate...and trying to arrive at valid conclusions myself.
Well conducted comparisons and discussions like these help us all make better decisions on what to us for what purpose.
Cheers,
Scott
In my research, the 14-24 outperforms the 14mm II in most all respects except for maybe distortion. In all the test images I've found the 14-24 is sharp corner to corner, shows no high contrast edge fringing, etc. I do love my 14mm II but when I saw full res samples from the 14-24 it was immediately clear that up until f8 or so the 14-24 has an edge. In any case the 14mm II is a fabulous lens, has AF and auto aperture stop-down on Canon bodies, and hence it's bar none the best ultra wide available for us. It regularly produces sharper images than my 24L, 35L, and 50L at just about any aperture setting which I think is quite remarkable for a 14mm ultra wide. The corner to corner sharpness is also quite good, with my only gripe being the slight fringing of high contrast edges towards the edge of frame from f2.8-f8. It's a minor complaint though and all in all it's worth the money if you need an ultrawide.
Anon Moss wrote:
Nazdravanul:
You state that, "The 14 2.8 mk2 will kick serious 14 - 24 butt in the WOW factor department. Colors, contrast, saturation, brightness , vignetting, will be better on the Canon prime".
With all due respect,
Is that subjective opinion or have you actual done a side by side comparison under the same shooting conditions? Or can you point us to a competent review that has conclusively demonstrated your claim?
I like the way that canon primes render images myself, and could make the same assumption that you are. But I would like to see proof.
I haven't heard anyone yet complain about the 14-24G's "Colors, contrast, saturation, brightness , vignetting". But I am willing to learn if you can point me to a resource where that has been documented.
Even if true...can't those issues be largely addressed in PP?
I'm not trying to start a pissing contest here...just being a bit of a devil's advocate...and trying to arrive at valid conclusions myself.
Well conducted comparisons and discussions like these help us all make better decisions on what to us for what purpose.
Cheers,
Scott...Show more →
Unfortunately I do not have formal evidence (shooting under controlled conditions) to back up my claims. The only formal tests I've seen were those on "slrgear" (where distortion seems better controlled on the Canon prime, and colors seem to pop better) and 16-9 where aside the sharpness in the corners I did like the center resolution and colors better on the canon prime (and really hated the colors on the nikon zoom, the difference is more obvious for me in that test). Also there is another reviewer here on fred miranda (check the 14mm mk2 review section) who seems to have come to the same conclusions after apparently owned/used both lenses.
Aside side by side "informal" tests performed by me in my local camera shop on 2 different occasions, I haven't made any other personal comparison. Reviewing for many hours photos taken with both lenses on places like pbase and flickr left me really disappointed on images I could find taken with the 14-24 (I know this is not at all a "scientific" approach to lens analysis, and it can have a lot more to do with sheer samples availability, level of users knowledgeability present on those sites, bodies used etc.) - but his was another factor in my decision, as I have seen more spectacular photos taken with the Canon prime than with the Nikon zoom. I couldn't afford to own both lenses for some extensive formal and real world testing, that's why I had to rely on all available data I could find and make a personal decision based on that.
I may be overexcited by the prime since I only took possession yesterday and I love Canon L primes anyway .
And even if PP can fix/change/improve a lot of things the quality of a lens resides in what it can do before PP begins.
nazdravanul wrote:
Unfortunately I do not have formal evidence (shooting under controlled conditions) to back up my claims. The only formal tests I've seen were those on "slrgear" (where distortion seems better controlled on the Canon prime, and colors seem to pop better) and 16-9 where aside the sharpness in the corners I did like the center resolution and colors better on the canon prime (and really hated the colors on the nikon zoom, the difference is more obvious for me in that test). Also there is another reviewer here on fred miranda (check the 14mm mk2 review section) who seems to have come to the same conclusions after apparently owned/used both lenses.
Aside side by side "informal" tests performed by me in my local camera shop on 2 different occasions, I haven't made any other personal comparison. Reviewing for many hours photos taken with both lenses on places like pbase and flickr left me really disappointed on images I could find taken with the 14-24 (I know this is not at all a "scientific" approach to lens analysis, and it can have a lot more to do with sheer samples availability, level of users knowledgeability present on those sites, bodies used etc.) - but his was another factor in my decision, as I have seen more spectacular photos taken with the Canon prime than with the Nikon zoom. I couldn't afford to own both lenses for some extensive formal and real world testing, that's why I had to rely on all available data I could find and make a personal decision based on that.
I may be overexcited by the prime since I only took possession yesterday and I love Canon L primes anyway .
And even if PP can fix/change/improve a lot of things the quality of a lens resides in what it can do before PP begins. ...Show more →
After reading what you have written here and looking at the 16-9 tests (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html)
its hard for me to agree with your conclusion. The major color difference that I see in these photos is the greater fringing that the 14mm L shows in comparison to the Nikkor14-24mm. Do you have an example of the superior color renditions that you are claiming for the 14mmL? Shots from the same camera with either lens mounted on the front?
By the way I shoot with both Nikon and Canon gear so I really don’t care which lens I will eventually buy, just interested in the best.
My dealer received a few on Thursday (all spoken for and already shipped out unfortunately). I should have mine in-hand Tuesday morning. I paid $1500.
I was about to go for the 24L I when this was announced but the potentially better corners and shorter minimum focus distance made me wait and spend the extra $ for the II version. I hope it was worth it.
Nazdravanul:
Thanks for your thoughtful response and observations. I haven't done any scientific tests or comparisons myself - I don't have the time or the expertise.
I have to make my lens buying decisions based on the best reviews I can find along with my own subjective findings and the findings of others that I respect...of which there are quite a few on FM.
The new hi rez sensors are going to be putting a lot of lenses under close scrutiny...and good reviews and comparisons are going to be needed using the new sensors for accurate evaluations...along with comparisons of large print results - which to me is the bottom line.
I now have the 5D2, and I like to both crop when needed and print large (16"x24" primarily, and up). I don't pixel-peep just for fun or try to overanalyze things unnecessarily. I just want to be able to produce the sharpest, highest quality prints possible with settings of 240-300ppi in CS4, and my printer at 600dpi.
I want and need the best lenses that I can get (within reason) to obtain my print objectives. And I don't care who makes the gear - I just want what's best for my purposes.
We have a lot of choices these days and it's getting better all the time. There is so much mis-information and subjective nonsense on the internet and even here on FM, that wading through it all for the nuggets can be time-consuming and frustrating at times.
It will be interesting to see how the new 24LII shapes up. I hope it's a winner.
Cheers,
Scott
Focus distance is the 0.25m -> infinity line and it is unchanged between the Mark 1 and Mark 2. Getting it to 3 inches would be remarkable but you can see the mistake on Canon USA's page where the MFD was confused with the filter size (77mm):
galenapass wrote:
After reading what you have written here and looking at the 16-9 tests (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html)
its hard for me to agree with your conclusion. The major color difference that I see in these photos is the greater fringing that the 14mm L shows in comparison to the Nikkor14-24mm. Do you have an example of the superior color renditions that you are claiming for the 14mmL? Shots from the same camera with either lens mounted on the front?
By the way I shoot with both Nikon and Canon gear so I really don’t care which lens I will eventually buy, just interested in the best.
In the 16-9 tests I don't like the color of the wall as shown by the Nikon lens (I actually hate it in comparison to the Canon wall color) and I feel that the pipe, for example, or the interior of the pub have more depth in the color and more elegance in the Canon shot ( the blue roof cover looks definitely better for Canon). Also the color of the wooden benches/tables in zone A or the color of the wooden pillar in zone B are definitely more alive and rich for me in the Canon shots.
Fringing is shown only in the corners, area C for Canon, also were the Nikon lens is clearly a lot sharper. But for me color rendition and distortion are equally if not more important factors than pure sharpness in the corners for deciding on a UWA lens. Pure sharpness is not overall IQ.
And I believe I already answered your question in regards to image samples in controlled environment, in my previous post.
And back on topic : I can't wait to see the samples from the new 24 (:.
