Hail the king of 24mm

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1

3 4 end

Hail the king of 24mm

skibum5
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #1 · Hail the king of 24mm

xrayvision wrote:
Unfortunately the Nikon 14 - 24mm f2.8 beats all lenses Canon offer at 14mm and 24mm in image quality even when shot wide open. So if the term King is to be used Canon is the King of nothing with in a focal length under 35. Truly, the Canon 35L is the King of 35's though

.

already been quite disproven.....

Jul 02, 2009 at 08:04 AM

Yakim Peled
Online
Image Upload: On

p.2 #2 · Hail the king of 24mm

SKumar25 wrote:
Now the hard part of deciding which one ot buy!

You forgot the word 'first' at the end.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Jul 02, 2009 at 08:56 AM

HelenaN
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · Hail the king of 24mm

I got the 24/1.4LII today and am awestruck. This lens is very sharp even at f/1.4 and there is virtually no CA at all. Amazing.

Jul 02, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Andrew Gough
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #4 · Hail the king of 24mm

I can tell you that the 24mm TS II is sharper than the Nikon.

Jul 02, 2009 at 02:51 PM

Doug Ball
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #5 · Hail the king of 24mm

Check out this comparison with the 14-24. The 24 TS-E is in a different league.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/787618

Jul 02, 2009 at 03:39 PM

mark1958
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #6 · Hail the king of 24mm

Mine 24mm TSE II is coming tomorrow. I know that Leslie at Pictureline has one in stock . You can call him and tell him Mark sent you as he offered it to me today but i found one yesterday

Jul 02, 2009 at 06:16 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #7 · Hail the king of 24mm

Doug Ball wrote:
Check out this comparison with the 14-24. The 24 TS-E is in a different league.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/787618

Yes and as I said that 14-24 is not very good. I'm sure the 24 TS-E II is better, but the 14-24 has been shown to be sharp wide open, even in the corners on a 1Ds III. Go to www.16-9.net for comparisons. Only the Zeiss distagon 21 f/2.8 beat it up until now.

Jul 03, 2009 at 02:00 AM

brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #8 · Hail the king of 24mm

epuja wrote:
xrayvision wrote:
Unfortunately the Nikon 14 - 24mm f2.8 beats all lenses Canon offer at 14mm and 24mm in image quality even when shot wide open.

thats an interesting comment, quite humorous though. i would tend to agree on the 14mm end, although the 14L II is a fine lens.

IMO the 14L2 has a couple of advantages over the Nikkor at 14mm. It is _very_ rectilinear which is a very welcome quality in a lens this wide. The NIkkor has quite strong distortion at 14mm. Also the 14L2 is compatible with the Canon 5D2 without a lens adaptor. If you want to put a camera with that kind of image quality on the 14-24 you need to shell out for a D3x. There are many ways in which EOS compatibility is still a valuable feature.

At 24mm the Nikkor may not be better than the new 24 L's for image quality, and while it competes on versatility and price, it can neither shift, nor open up to f1.4. It really doesn't make much sense to worry about the infinitessimal differences in performance of these 4 superb lenses when each one of them has very different strengths and applications.

While the Nikkor is a superb all-rounder, the question is how many photographers can afford to buy or carry all three of the Canon's? And does that matter when most photographers specialise in specific areas of photography? And if you're looking for a general use UWA, can you put up with the totally inadequate 16-35L2 and 17-40L? Currently the 24L f1.4 and 17-40 are the lenses for my kind of work, and Nikon can't match either of those lenses at any price. I would not prefer a 14-24 over a 17-40 because I depend on the 40mm end. The Nikkor 14-24 is big, heavy and vulnerable and the Nikkor 17-35 is quite distorted at the 35mm end. Today, Canon's excellent wideangle offerings are a reason for switching. To Canon.

Jul 03, 2009 at 03:41 PM

thedigitalbean
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Hail the king of 24mm

A lot of what Richard (brainiac) has said resonates with me. In terms of bang for buck and versatility the 14-24 is hard to beat. However I've found that in the 6 months I've had the lens, I've never mounted it on the camera for the range, but always for the wide end.

If I want to shoot at 24, I find myself reaching for the 24 f/1.4 II and now if I want to go wide, I'll opt for the 17 TS-E (I'm finding that the ability to shift compensates for the 3mm advantage of the 14-24 for what I shoot). This combo is absolutely NOT cheap and understandably not everyone will be able or want to spend that much money.

In the end there's a place for all these superb lenses, it just depends on the subject and shooting style of the photographer.

Jul 03, 2009 at 05:48 PM

epuja
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #10 · Hail the king of 24mm

brainiac wrote:
epuja wrote:
xrayvision wrote:
Unfortunately the Nikon 14 - 24mm f2.8 beats all lenses Canon offer at 14mm and 24mm in image quality even when shot wide open.

thats an interesting comment, quite humorous though. i would tend to agree on the 14mm end, although the 14L II is a fine lens.

IMO the 14L2 has a couple of advantages over the Nikkor at 14mm. It is _very_ rectilinear which is a very welcome quality in a lens this wide. The NIkkor has quite strong distortion at 14mm. Also the 14L2 is compatible with the Canon 5D2 without a lens adaptor. If you want to put a camera with that kind of image quality on the 14-24 you need to shell out for a D3x. There are many ways in which EOS compatibility is still a valuable feature.

At 24mm the Nikkor may not be better than the new 24 L's for image quality, and while it competes on versatility and price, it can neither shift, nor open up to f1.4. It really doesn't make much sense to worry about the infinitessimal differences in performance of these 4 superb lenses when each one of them has very different strengths and applications.

While the Nikkor is a superb all-rounder, the question is how many photographers can afford to buy or carry all three of the Canon's? And does that matter when most photographers specialise in specific areas of photography? And if you're looking for a general use UWA, can you put up with the totally inadequate 16-35L2 and 17-40L? Currently the 24L f1.4 and 17-40 are the lenses for my kind of work, and Nikon can't match either of those lenses at any price. I would not prefer a 14-24 over a 17-40 because I depend on the 40mm end. The Nikkor 14-24 is big, heavy and vulnerable and the Nikkor 17-35 is quite distorted at the 35mm end. Today, Canon's excellent wideangle offerings are a reason for switching. To Canon.

i completely agree with what u have said..they are my thoughts exactly. On a Canon camera, I would not recommended using the 14-24 with an adapter, considering Canon's own lineup of wide primes leaves little to be desired..

Jul 03, 2009 at 06:10 PM

garyvot
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #11 · Hail the king of 24mm

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Doug Ball wrote:
Check out this comparison with the 14-24. The 24 TS-E is in a different league.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/787618

Yes and as I said that 14-24 is not very good. I'm sure the 24 TS-E II is better, but the 14-24 has been shown to be sharp wide open, even in the corners on a 1Ds III. Go to www.16-9.net for comparisons. Only the Zeiss distagon 21 f/2.8 beat it up until now.

Not sure about the Nikkor, but I can say that that 24-70 was not very good. I've done the same testing with my copy and it's not the same as this one at all.

It's unfair to compare edge performance of a normal lens against a tilt-shift wide open: the TS lens draws a much larger image circle, and so you are not really looking at its "edge".

(Existentialist thought of the day: don't people stop down their lenses anymore? Who said extreme corners should be sharp wide open?)

Jul 03, 2009 at 06:18 PM

skibum5
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #12 · Hail the king of 24mm

brainiac wrote:
epuja wrote:
xrayvision wrote:
Unfortunately the Nikon 14 - 24mm f2.8 beats all lenses Canon offer at 14mm and 24mm in image quality even when shot wide open.

thats an interesting comment, quite humorous though. i would tend to agree on the 14mm end, although the 14L II is a fine lens.

IMO the 14L2 has a couple of advantages over the Nikkor at 14mm. It is _very_ rectilinear which is a very welcome quality in a lens this wide. The NIkkor has quite strong distortion at 14mm. Also the 14L2 is compatible with the Canon 5D2 without a lens adaptor. If you want to put a camera with that kind of image quality on the 14-24 you need to shell out for a D3x. There are many ways in which EOS compatibility is still a valuable feature.

At 24mm the Nikkor may not be better than the new 24 L's for image quality, and while it competes on versatility and price, it can neither shift, nor open up to f1.4. It really doesn't make much sense to worry about the infinitessimal differences in performance of these 4 superb lenses when each one of them has very different strengths and applications.

While the Nikkor is a superb all-rounder, the question is how many photographers can afford to buy or carry all three of the Canon's? And does that matter when most photographers specialise in specific areas of photography? And if you're looking for a general use UWA, can you put up with the totally inadequate 16-35L2 and 17-40L? Currently the 24L f1.4 and 17-40 are the lenses for my kind of work, and Nikon can't match either of those lenses at any price. I would not prefer a 14-24 over a 17-40 because I depend on the 40mm end. The Nikkor 14-24 is big, heavy and vulnerable and the Nikkor 17-35 is quite distorted at the 35mm end. Today, Canon's excellent wideangle offerings are a reason for switching. To Canon.

and don't forget about trying to put a polarizer onthe 14-24

Jul 03, 2009 at 06:35 PM

epuja
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #13 · Hail the king of 24mm

garyvot wrote:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Doug Ball wrote:
Check out this comparison with the 14-24. The 24 TS-E is in a different league.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/787618

Yes and as I said that 14-24 is not very good. I'm sure the 24 TS-E II is better, but the 14-24 has been shown to be sharp wide open, even in the corners on a 1Ds III. Go to www.16-9.net for comparisons. Only the Zeiss distagon 21 f/2.8 beat it up until now.

Not sure about the Nikkor, but I can say that that 24-70 was not very good. I've done the same testing with my copy and it's not the same as this one at all.

It's unfair to compare edge performance of a normal lens against a tilt-shift wide open: the TS lens draws a much larger image circle, and so you are not really looking at its "edge".

(Existentialist thought of the day: don't people stop down their lenses anymore? Who said extreme corners should be sharp wide open?)

Gary, Common now - where's that pixel-peeper spirit that keeps these forums alive ?

Jul 03, 2009 at 06:36 PM

skibum5
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #14 · Hail the king of 24mm

garyvot wrote:

It's unfair to compare edge performance of a normal lens against a tilt-shift wide open: the TS lens draws a much larger image circle, and so you are not really looking at its "edge".
?)

how is that unfair? it is what it is and that is a larger image circle lens and if you buy it you DON'T have to use it shifted. Reality is what it is, if you buy it you can use it well centered within what it can do.

the nikon 14-24 is what it is and it does not have that larger image circle projection.

you might as well say any comparison is unfair because this lens has that coating and that lens does that, etc.

Jul 03, 2009 at 06:37 PM

Bobu
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #15 · Hail the king of 24mm

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Doug Ball wrote:
Check out this comparison with the 14-24. The 24 TS-E is in a different league.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/787618

Yes and as I said that 14-24 is not very good. I'm sure the 24 TS-E II is better, but the 14-24 has been shown to be sharp wide open, even in the corners on a 1Ds III. Go to www.16-9.net for comparisons. Only the Zeiss distagon 21 f/2.8 beat it up until now.

I don't believe this. My 14-24 is, especially at 14mm, one of the sharpest lenses I ever had. For example better than my 1.2/85 and better than my Contax 3.4/35-70. Even wide open in the corners this lens is very good. Maybe all my lenses are defective, but that is improbable.

To my mind the 24TSE is just better wide open @24mm. The test at 16-9 doesn't prove anything, because there is at the moment no direct comparison to the TSE and the test object is different, so a direct comparison to my crops is very difficult.

Boris

Edited on Jul 03, 2009 at 11:55 PM · View previous versions

Jul 03, 2009 at 11:01 PM

globalkiwi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #16 · Hail the king of 24mm

Andrew Gough wrote:
I can tell you that the 24mm TS II is sharper than the Nikon.

Personally, I don't like the Nikon 14-24, but it's worth remembering that the 24 TS-E is >US$2000 for a MF lens!

Jul 03, 2009 at 11:20 PM

mark1958
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #17 · Hail the king of 24mm

I also tried the 14-24. It is an outstanding zoom and really quite impressive. However it is too hard to use and getting focus accurate is not that easy. The 24 TSE is much easier to use -- and of course you have tilt and shift. I have two coming and will return one. If someone wants it drop me a note.

Jul 04, 2009 at 12:44 AM

ILOVECANONL
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #18 · Hail the king of 24mm

i'd grab the 14-24mm anyday for a wedding

the new 24L II and 24TSE II looks sweet for weddings too.

16-35, 17-40 not so.

Jul 04, 2009 at 12:55 AM

garyvot
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #19 · Hail the king of 24mm

skibum5 wrote:
garyvot wrote:

It's unfair to compare edge performance of a normal lens against a tilt-shift wide open: the TS lens draws a much larger image circle, and so you are not really looking at its "edge".
?)

how is that unfair? it is what it is and that is a larger image circle lens and if you buy it you DON'T have to use it shifted. Reality is what it is, if you buy it you can use it well centered within what it can do.

the nikon 14-24 is what it is and it does not have that larger image circle projection.

you might as well say any comparison is unfair because this lens has that coating and that lens does that, etc.

Fair enough.

However, my point is that sharp corners unshifted are not proof points for the superiority of a TS-E lens. This characteristic may make it better for a given application, but to say it is superior in absolute terms you would have to see the *actual* corners (e.g., the outer edge of the image circle). If soft, then the lens is not superior when used for its intended purpose (shifted).

Edited on Jul 04, 2009 at 05:32 AM · View previous versions

Jul 04, 2009 at 05:27 AM

garyvot
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #20 · Hail the king of 24mm

ILOVECANONL wrote:
i'd grab the 14-24mm anyday for a wedding

the new 24L II and 24TSE II looks sweet for weddings too.

16-35, 17-40 not so.

I don't own the 17-40, but the 16-35 II is an outstanding zoom in my experience, and seems to be commonly used for weddings. It's only significant weakness is some softness in the extreme corners at wide apertures, but this almost never detracts from candid photography, and is resolved when stopping down.

For candid shooting, I don't have the patience for adapters, stopped down metering or manual focus, so the Nikkor and the 24 TS-E are simply not options for me. The 24L II is a fantastic lens, but a zoom is often more practical for event work.

Jul 04, 2009 at 05:31 AM

SKumar25
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #21 · Hail the king of 24mm

ILOVECANONL wrote:
i'd grab the 14-24mm anyday for a wedding

the new 24L II and 24TSE II looks sweet for weddings too.

16-35, 17-40 not so.

Really, the 14-24mm (I assume on a Canon), and a 24TSE for weddings!?! What sort of wedding photos would you take with these?

The 24LII would be awesome for weddings, and I've seen some excellent samples.

The 16-35 is prime like across much of the frame on FF, coupled with a very versatile zoom range. It makes for an excellent PJ lens. The 2.8 L zooms are the the mainstay of many a wedding photographer's kit.

Jul 04, 2009 at 10:05 AM

dolina
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #22 · Hail the king of 24mm

Correction, that's 30 200 1.8's and 10 50 1.0's

Peter's a connoisseur of lenses so if he thinks both 24s are bunk then they are bunk.

Jul 04, 2009 at 10:39 AM

PetKal
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #23 · Hail the king of 24mm

Paolo, you gonna get me into lottsa hot water.

Jul 04, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Andrew Gough
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #24 · Hail the king of 24mm

PetKal wrote:
Paolo, you gonna get me into lottsa hot water.

Jul 04, 2009 at 01:53 PM

Jman13
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #25 · Hail the king of 24mm

PetKal wrote:
Paolo, you gonna get me into lottsa hot water.

Haven't used either of those two lenses. Therefore, I've got only some impressions based on what I've seen published on them.
* the 24 f/1.4 II seems to present a very minor improvement in some areas of performance, if at all, for a major increase in price.
* the TS-E 24 f/3.5 II seems obscenely overpriced for a manual and slow (f/3.5) lens. Unless it has that Leica build quality. Unless it redefines and sets a new standard for IQ of wide lenses.

PetKal - have you used a tilt-shift before? It offers capabilities that no other class of lenses can offer. The maximum aperture is really not a big deal at all, considering the other things it can do. I have the 24 Mark I, and it's a very expensive lens (though still half of what the new one costs)...and it's not even very sharp when shifted (it's quite sharp unshifted). Why do I still love it? Because it still offers capabilities beyond anything else I own. The new 24 is very expensive, and I'm still thinking about possibly selling a bunch of my kit in order to upgrade...it just looks that good. I have to tell myself, though, that I'm not a professional architecture photographer, and until I can make some money with it, I'm OK with the mark I.

Some day, though, I will own the new 24, or the 17 TS-E.

Jul 04, 2009 at 02:36 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 4 end