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.
AGeoJO wrote: 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...
Either that or get a D700 . That lens almost single handedly made me buy my D700.
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.
AGeoJO wrote: 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...
Either that or get a D700 . That lens almost single handedly made me buy my D700.
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 .
I used my 14-24, 24-70 & 70-200 extreme rough..........
What i get..................good image from the lens.
My lens & camera is really dirty each time i go for wildlife shooting.
This is why I switched to Nikon last year, When I was a Canon shooter I had to send back(all at different times mind you) a 24mm 1.4L, a 24-70 L, a 100-400L, a 10-22mm, and a 70-300 DO all because of one problem or the other. I got so tired of having problems with brand new equipment, and waiting for significant updates and getting BS updates from their new bodies that I threw in the towel. Got to where I had no confidence whatsoever in my gear.
I have had no problems whatsoever with my Nikon gear. none.. Not to mention the feature sets are in a whole different league. I love it
Makten wrote: parsons wrote:
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.
Why don't you use manual focus with the 16-35 instead of bothering with calibration then?
cant see how manual focus would help, if the lens isnt sharp with other aberattions, that sure aint gonna help been there before. for landscape work always use manual anyways.
My 10-20 is much sharper than my 12-24. Luckily, I don't use ultra wide angle very often. 