no problem at all with the 14-24 as far as I am concerned. And no problem at all with any of my Nikon lenses (the only exception has been an old 28-80 cheapo plastic lens which literally exploded in my hands).
I have a few focus adjustment issues with Tamron lenses, however (but they work perfectly after adjustment in the body)
no problem at all with the 14-24 as far as I am concerned. And no problem at all with any of my Nikon lenses (the only exception has been an old 28-80 cheapo plastic lens which literally exploded in my hands).
I have a few focus adjustment issues with Tamron lenses, however (but they work perfectly after adjustment in the body)
thank you for the responses. yes it is marks adapter that iam thinking of getting.
another question, hows the distortion on this thing @ 24mm 18 &14mm. i have the sigma 12-24 even on a crop 1.3 ive got some bad distortion that i cannot deal with in PS.
You may want to consider one of the Zeiss wide angle lenses as well, that have built in aperture control..... Rather than messing with the hokey adapters.
Max Power wrote:
Wow, does that test ever expose the Sigma.
That 14-24 is really remarkable. I've had a sigma 12-24 for years. I don't know if it is as soft as the lens in that test, but it certainly isn't what I'd call a really sharp lens. My 10-20 is much sharper than my 12-24. Luckily, I don't use ultra wide angle very often.
TWoK wrote:
Get a 16-35/2.8 Mk2 and forget about adapting this lens. Adapting this thing is going to make it even more bulky and awkward to use...
I disagree. I just left canon after many years of shooting with it. I owned the 16-35II and the 14-24 is in a whole different league. I don't know that I'd want to have to manually focus it all the time but as for IQ, the difference is definitely noticeable.
TWoK wrote:
Get a 16-35/2.8 Mk2 and forget about adapting this lens. Adapting this thing is going to make it even more bulky and awkward to use...
Spoken like a guy who uses a Canon 40d. Nothing wrong with that, but you've never used either of these lenses because if you had, you'd know they're in whole different classes. Not to mention, 2mm is a very big difference in some applications.
thanks,
have had the 16-35Mk2 and well, what a waste of time. was sent for calibration twice before i was heading to NZ on holiday. was really crap, canon and the shop claimed it was within spec! if thats in spec, well wasnt sharp into the corners until F16 at any focal lenght. let alone 2.8. 24mm was good at f11, just!
it would only be used for my love of landscapes so auto focus is a non issue, the asapter has focus confirm, which should help.
I've had an extremely good experience with the 14-24 and its IQ. Unfortunately, I don't see myself using it NEARLY as much as I thought and keep myself open to 24-70G trading. But damn, this was a fine piece of glass .
My 10-20 is much sharper than my 12-24. Luckily, I don't use ultra wide angle very often. 