p.1 #1 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Hi,
Would like some input on the following: I would like to purchase a wider angle lens for architecture and landscapes. Currently I have a Canon 1ds mark2 with a 24-70 f/2.8 that I am using and find that I would like to go wider at times. I also just partially switched to Nikon for field sports, so I have a Nikon D3s and a 400 for that. I am very happy with that combo for field sports.
Reading for the past couple of weeks I am finding that the Nikon 14-24 consistently gets better reviews than the Canon 16-35 ll. So it seems that I should get the Nikon 14-24 for the D3s.
Concern is that the Canon 1ds mk2 has 16 MP, while the D3s has 12. Since I want to use this for landscapes, I presume that the files from the 16 MP Canon would be better. I do not have any other lenses for the Nikon, so if I go with the additional Nikon 14-24 lens I guess I would be switching even further into Nikon. Not that that is bad, but I am not sure I want to do that just yet. Also filters for the Nikon apparently are an issue.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Just looking at Hammy's response I realize that glass is the most important factor here. So, if we are to assume that the Nikon 14-24 is the better lens, then the question comes down to what is the better combo for landscapes: Canon 1dsmk2 with the Nikon 14-24 or the Nikon D3s with the Nikon 14-24?
p.1 #2 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
J4644 wrote:
... the Nikon 14-24 consistently gets better reviews than the Canon 16-35 ll. So it seems that I should get the Nikon 14-24 for the D3s.
That's what I've seen from shooters I've worked with - no question.
J4644 wrote:
I presume that the files from the 16 MP Canon would be better.
That's like saying a 10mpix camera phone is better than a 8mpix MarkII-N.
If the glass doesn't pass the light to the sensor correctly (color, vignetting, CA, etc..) then it doesn't matter what sensor is receiving it.
The D3s is a much newer sensor and I believe the 14-24 to be a much better piece of glass - again from what I've seen samples of. IMO, image quality begins with glass - then the sensor. And sensors (cameras) will be updated/upgraded many times over while we'll maintain a great lens through many generations of camera bodies.
p.1 #3 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Hammy,
Thanks for the response. I value your experience and am always amazed on the logistics of some of your events that you handle. I also agree with what you are saying except that I do not think that the higher MP Canon is the camera phone here.
p.1 #4 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Jim,
Sorry, in no way was I trying to compare a camera phone to your 1Ds-II.
I get too many people telling me that their point-n-shoot, cell phone or digital rebel has more resolution that my Mark2N bodies and therefore, they have a better camera. What they don't get, is the fact that I have the glass to fill the frame and get better bokeh than they could ever get.
My point is that the 1Ds2 sensor is 5 years old - compared to a few month old D3s sensor. From the D3 and D3s images that I've processed, they are very nice - enought that I'm on the fence as to switching all my gear over to Nikon. Even the Mark4 is behind the D3s IMO. (Many of my peers have already made the switch.)
p.1 #6 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Hammy,
Thanks for the clarification. I obviously feel that the Mark 4 fell short, that is why I have the Nikon gear for field sports and cannot wait to see how it does for basketball with the 70-200, when I get it. The overwhelming consensus is that the D3s is better at higher ISO's. Additionally, I cannot quantify this, but I feel that the AF is a little more consistent relative to my Mark3.
As for people thinking that more MP's are more important, well that is just a marketing ploy for the uninitiated. It is like power tools and horsepower. Sears can sell a 3 HP table saw and people think that it is very powerful. However, it really is the torque that it develops that is more important.
p.1 #7 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Ellis,
Now you are just making things much more difficult. But I do hear you and understand why you would suggest those lenses. So you seem to be suggesting that I keep my Canon 1dsmk2 to use with those lenses and not use the Nikon D3s for those applications.
p.1 #11 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
I think the 1D Mark IV is a better camera than the 1Ds mark II but I fully understand your concern about 24x36mm vs the APS-H size sensor regarding angle of view ( the 17mm being equivalent to a 22.1mm angle of view wise on the 1D Mark IV).
p.1 #12 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
I have put the EOS adapter on the Nikkor 14-24 for my FF Canons. It's a bit imprecise setting the F stop (I always use ME). Then there's MF too. I put a piece of dymo on the barrel "MANUAL FOCUS" to remind me. So you have to be patient while photographing in-animates. That said the results are spectacular.
But now that I have the the go to lens for architecture (17 FE, with or W/O the 1.4x that makes it a F5.6 24mm) I am going to remove the adapter so I can use it with my D3s. But if you have the D3s and 14-24 I wouldn't adapt it just to get 4 more MP (12 to 16Mp sensors) on a 1Ds Mk II.
p.1 #13 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
SoundHound,
Thanks for the information. So using it on the D3s, with it's 4 MP disadvantage is not that big of a deal. I guess I can buy the adaptor and compare them side-by-side and see if there is any noticeable difference between the two. If I cannot see one, I could always sell the adaptor.
Thanks,
Jim
Jul 29, 2010 at 02:15 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
J4644 wrote:
Hi,
Would like some input on the following: I would like to purchase a wider angle lens for architecture and landscapes. Currently I have a Canon 1ds mark2 with a 24-70 f/2.8 that I am using and find that I would like to go wider at times. I also just partially switched to Nikon for field sports, so I have a Nikon D3s and a 400 for that. I am very happy with that combo for field sports.
Reading for the past couple of weeks I am finding that the Nikon 14-24 consistently gets better reviews than the Canon 16-35 ll. So it seems that I should get the Nikon 14-24 for the D3s.
Concern is that the Canon 1ds mk2 has 16 MP, while the D3s has 12. Since I want to use this for landscapes, I presume that the files from the 16 MP Canon would be better. I do not have any other lenses for the Nikon, so if I go with the additional Nikon 14-24 lens I guess I would be switching even further into Nikon. Not that that is bad, but I am not sure I want to do that just yet. Also filters for the Nikon apparently are an issue.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Just looking at Hammy's response I realize that glass is the most important factor here. So, if we are to assume that the Nikon 14-24 is the better lens, then the question comes down to what is the better combo for landscapes: Canon 1dsmk2 with the Nikon 14-24 or the Nikon D3s with the Nikon 14-24?
Why would anybody even think about using their Nikon 14-24 lens on a 6 year old Canon body, if they own the Nikon D3s
If you like a good wide angle for your Canon body, you can buy the 17TS-E lens. A lot better than the nikon zoom for architectur. And also nice for landscape
p.1 #15 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Lars,
Because I like the files from my Canon 1dsmk2. Additionally, I still do not think that the solution is so obvious.
Jim
Jul 29, 2010 at 05:21 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
J4644 wrote:
Lars,
Because I like the files from my Canon 1dsmk2. Additionally, I still do not think that the solution is so obvious.
Jim
Don't you like the files from your Nikon D3s And it's a big advantage to use the lens on the camera it's suppose to fit
You told us the 4 MP disadvantage is not that big of a deal. And in nearly everything else the Nikon is a better camera
p.1 #17 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Lars,
I like the files from my 400mm lens and D3s combo for sports, primarily field sports. I do not have any other Nikon lenses, so all my portraits, landscapes and architecture photos are from my Canon bodies and lenses. Have not had the opportunity to shoot landscapes with my D3s, unless of course I use my 400, which I do not want to do.
As for the 4 MP difference, I never said that it was not a big deal. On the contrary, this is my main concern that the 12 MP Nikon may not do as well of a job with landscapes as the 16 MP Canon. This is my question, whether the Nikon can meet or beat the files for lanscapes, relative to the 1dsmk2.
Thanks,
Jim
Jul 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
J4644 wrote:
SoundHound,
Thanks for the information. So using it on the D3s, with it's 4 MP disadvantage is not that big of a deal. I guess I can buy the adaptor and compare them side-by-side and see if there is any noticeable difference between the two. If I cannot see one, I could always sell the adaptor.
p.1 #19 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Lars,
I am not sure how to take this. So I will assume that there is no problem here for now. I did write that, but it was summing up what SoundHound was saying. Not what I was saying or believing. If I believed that the Nikon with it's 12 MP sensor was better for landscapes than the Canon 16 MP sensor, I would not be here asking for anyone's experience on the matter. I would just buy the Nikon 14-24. If the general consensus from this thread is to buy the Nikon and use it on the D3s, then I will probably do that.
p.1 #20 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
OK you have the D3s and 1Ds2 but not the 14-28? logical thing to do is hire the 14-28 and go shoot some landscape on the d3s. I bet it would more than suffice for landscapes. But if it was not enough res for you then I doubt the 4mp more from the canon would push you over the edge. Now if you were talking about the 21mp from either the 5D2 or Ds3 then I can see that could be a worthy upgrade in MP. Many use that lens on all the canon bodies. you could of course get a D3X, that would give you 24mp
As for the Adapter the Fotodix is the same as the 16-9 net one the hubsand makes. if you look on his site his comes with a chip as well. But obviously its going to be fully manual focus
Hell if you get the lens and use it mainly on your D3s then just get an adapter and use it on you canon as well
But I do hear you and understand why you would suggest those lenses. So you seem to be suggesting that I keep my Canon 1dsmk2 to use with those lenses and not use the Nikon D3s for those applications.
