from what i've read of any review anywhere, you guys and everyone else say the 14-24mm is the best wide angle out there currently and how great an FF lens it is. i have yet to see pics to back up all that talk, what do you guys have for me?
---XR--- wrote:
from what i've read of any review anywhere, you guys and everyone else say the 14-24mm is the best wide angle out there currently and how great an FF lens it is. i have yet to see pics to back up all that talk, what do you guys have for me?
How about we flip it around and you show us something out there that is better ?
millsart wrote:
How about we flip it around and you show us something out there that is better ?
i've seen plenty an amazing WA picture, but not alot of 14-24 pics for the amount of discusstion and praise put on it, i haven't used it before so i couldn't tell you if IMO it is in fact living up to it's name and praise. personally i do landscape WA in decent light, so a 2.8 aperture and an AF-S motor are 2 costly features i don't need and rather not pay for, a regular AF and anything from F4-5.6 Constant or not can work for myself. keep em coming guys!
Don't ask us for images to prove the superiority of the 14-24 over other lenses. We can only show what we as individual photgraphers can do with then lens. The image is however mostly a result of the talent of the photographer. If you want to compare the perfomance of best WA lenses read what for instance Canon shooters have concluded:
From what you indicate, you probably don't need the lens. That being said, there is NO lens out on the market right now (WA wise) that can live up for sharpness and lack of CA.
If your content with the 4-5.6 lenses though, you probably don't need this lens.
---XR--- wrote:
i've seen plenty an amazing WA picture, but not alot of 14-24 pics for the amount of discusstion and praise put on it, i haven't used it before so i couldn't tell you if IMO it is in fact living up to it's name and praise. personally i do landscape WA in decent light, so a 2.8 aperture and an AF-S motor are 2 costly features i don't need and rather not pay for, a regular AF and anything from F4-5.6 Constant or not can work for myself. keep em coming guys!
ok well here are a few handheld shots you cant do with any other WA at F2.8 ,, the reason you dont do this type of thing is because you cant.
Kaj E wrote:
Don't ask us for images to prove the superiority of the 14-24 over other lenses. We can only show what we as individual photgraphers can do with then lens. The image is however mostly a result of the talent of the photographer. If you want to compare the perfomance of best WA lenses read what for instance Canon shooters have concluded:
i am well aware that it is indivudual photographers talent and not the camera/lens, i've seen plenty of shooters shotting setups that i personally believe were above there level in terms of there experience and knowledge when i saw there results, my point is simply that if it is as good as it seems there should be no problem showing me images that say so. If you don't believe the individual amateur/proffesionals here can show me good pics with there talent, than please show me who can.
I have only had my 14-24 for a little over 2 months maybe. I am usually too busy playing with my new 70-200 to give my UWA a good run. I am trying to broaden my shooting from when I used my older Sigma 10-20 90% of the time. You can pretty much find almost any photo where it is focused on infinity and see what the strongest point of this lens is.. Corner sharpness. Give it time as more people are able to acquire it and production finally catches up with demand. This lens kicks ass.
