Great review and AWESOME pictures.

V.

Nothing more to add beyond what's already been said: really helpful write up and great illustration.

Speaking purely selfishly, I hope it dispels some of the unwarranted skepticism among Canon users about 16:9's championing of this lens - as though we're hyping it to sell adaptors. Actually, the reverse is true: we've gone very quiet about the adaptor and the lens while we try to make them in sufficient quantities. But, honestly, there was no way I could let a lens that good go unadapted!

The 'vignetting' mentioned is a non-issue: the hood only creeps into view top-left and bottom-right if you shoot at f22 AND at less than 1m AND wider than 16mm. If you can think of a valid reason to do that, you get an adaptor for free.

Actually I'm still surprised that so many people are keeping quiet about the lens: we've now shipped more than 100 adaptors (40 in the last week).

I'll certainly link to the site from 16:9 in the next update.

Yes an I would like to echo that, a quality product is a quality product, both lens and adapter. I am just a happy user realising the potential of this great combo and feel it would be of great benefit to show what can be done with it, keen to run my findings along with Marks tests and put them in a landscape context. Much much more to come guaranteed.

It has certainly ended my search for a killer wide angle zoom. I reach for it 90% of the time at the coast.

hubsand wrote:
Nothing more to add beyond what's already been said: really helpful write up and great illustration.

Speaking purely selfishly, I hope it dispels some of the unwarranted skepticism among Canon users about 16:9's championing of this lens - as though we're hyping it to sell adaptors. Actually, the reverse is true: we've gone very quiet about the adaptor and the lens while we try to make them in sufficient quantities. But, honestly, there was no way I could let a lens that good go unadapted!

The 'vignetting' mentioned is a non-issue: the hood only creeps into view top-left and bottom-right if you shoot at f22 AND at less than 1m AND wider than 16mm. If you can think of a valid reason to do that, you get an adaptor for free.

Actually I'm still surprised that so many people are keeping quiet about the lens: we've now shipped more than 100 adaptors (40 in the last week).

I'll certainly link to the site from 16:9 in the next update.

Mark, what date are you up to?

I ordered Aug. 2

wayne seltzer wrote:


dcmiller, doesn't tilting lens cause vertical objects like trees to become tilted and need perspective distortion correction in post?

david,
you don't see less resolution at f11 due to diffraction than at f8?


Tilting - the near needs to be low, like it is when using tilt on a view camera. The far probably is changed a little, but not a big deal.

Diffraction - f11 definitely resolves less, but it doesn't get real noticeable until closer to f16. Optimal resolution at 21mp is probably closer to f5.6 than f8. But diffraction is always better than OOF.

After reading this review I am very interested in this beauty.

Great review. Both goods and bads.

A

Great review for landscape use of the lens.

Has anyone done \ seen an as in depth review in the use in interiors, architectural work of this lens.
So looking at distortion, ca, etc in an image with many vertical and horizontal lines.
Lenses from 24mm and up, both prime and shift are well known and documented for these purposes but wider than that...

The previous benchmark for a lens this wide had been the sigma 12-24 where a good copy had the minimal distortion and was evenly sharp on both sides, but a bit soft overall.

It would be great to see any comparisons at the wider end and then also at the 18 and 21mm ends between this adapted nikon and the sigma and canon options. (as the cost of a 14 + 18 + 21 prime is fairly high!).

DXO optics can work wonders on the canons but at what cost to overall image quality when compared to the nikon, corrected manualy in similar software.

This is all as long as my lee resin filters can be used as interiors or exteriors with all the reflections and people without a polariser or nd...not for me!

Thats certainly on the cards in the next week or so. I think a church shoot might be in order with this lens.

You hit the nail on the head as to why I like this lens in specific and also to do with the cost of primes (and weight) to cover the same focal lengths. Its a great alternative lens to the other alternatives (!)

I want to do a comparison with the 21mm Zeiss as I know someone who has one fortunately.

Now if it were an f4, we would have the perfect landscape setup:

Nikon 14-24 f4
CZ 35-70
Canon 70-200 f4 IS

marcwilson wrote:

Has anyone done \ seen an as in depth review in the use in interiors, architectural work of this lens.
So looking at distortion, ca, etc in an image with many vertical and horizontal lines.
Lenses from 24mm and up, both prime and shift are well known and documented for these purposes but wider than that...

Not a review; I'm using it for that purpose, here' s a example for 18 mm:



sorry for the ©-logo, but it has do be...

For interiors, its just gorgeos, as you can compose the image as you like, having enough UW.
I usually don't like UW's to much, but sometimes you can't step back. With less than - lets say - 18 mm, I try alwith to go orthogonal.

As I wrote in post 15, there's little distortion; I correct it with Lenscorrector. Works fine.

Doing all the jobs < than 25 mm with it. On my copy, I do have sometimes a slightly bit of CA, depending on the light situations and objects (metal surface, etc) But the backlit from windows produces very rarely CA; I couldn't really figure when and why...

Thanks for that.
Looks like it could be a good compliment to a set of shift and primes between 24mm and upwards as it gives the extra width over the canons wide zooms, and very high performance also. I used to use a sigma 12-24 and whilst the lines were very straight the images were always a touch soft...

it will be most interesting to see comparisons between it and the canon 14mm and zeiss 18 and 21mm's when they are both available in canon mount.

Out of interest for the lens correction to work correctly do you not need to know the focal length used as distortion correction will be different at different focal lengths?

Cheers,


Marc

I was wondering that as well...

David,
Thank you very much for your review!
I like your pictures very much!
The lens is one thing, the way you create your images another and the way your blend the exposures a third.

I would love to see the two single pictures you blended to the final one. That would help me on my way to learn how to blend exposured in a natural looking way without using HRD.

Stefan

marcwilson wrote:
Thanks for that.
Looks like it could be a good compliment to a set of shift and primes between 24mm and upwards as it gives the extra width over the canons wide zooms, and very high performance also. I used to use a sigma 12-24 and whilst the lines were very straight the images were always a touch soft...

it will be most interesting to see comparisons between it and the canon 14mm and zeiss 18 and 21mm's when they are both available in canon mount.

Out of interest for the lens correction to work correctly do you not need to know the focal length used as distortion correction will be different at different focal lengths? Cheers, Marc

Marc
I never tested against the Sigma, but in comparison with some RAWs from it, it's a different story. All the Sigma I saw - even handpicked ones - had that corner unsharpness.

Lens correction
Yes, you' ve to know the focal lenghts, when correcting for distortion. Initially, I took some notes, but I forget sometimes, so I had to guess, then, which worked somehow, as the 14 - 24 has little distortion, compared to the canon UW-zooms.

Later I used a little Dictaphone, but the best methode is to add a little paper - with the focale lengths printed on it - when taking the Colorchecker-shot, which I never forget with interiors.

Not a big deal, 5 sheets of a paper A-4, folded once, with one focal lenghts on each side, so it stands on a floor, table, etc. Anyway, if I take multiple images of the same room, I hate to have nervous focal lengths switches, I almost use the identical focal lengths.

It seems for architecture, at some point, it might be easier to go back to just using a view camera. I think about a 24 x 48 sensor with a really good LCD like on the newer Canon's and Nikons.
A few years ago I looked at a MF back with digitar lenses. With the crappy LCD on the back, outside the studio precise focus would be a nightmare. But given live view on a good screen it would be perfect.
If the 14-24 was the lens I needed I might look at switching to the D3x. For what I do muddling along with that lens on Canon is fine.

dcmiller wrote:

If the 14-24 was the lens I needed I might look at switching to the D3x. For what I do muddling along with that lens on Canon is fine.

yes with the arrival of the new nikon it seems at last we can base our choice of camera on the more important bit...the lenses.

Certainly the Nikon will not offer all the alternative options the Canon body can but if you are looking at the wide end from say 14 to 35mm and wide shift possibilities as most important, then all bodies being equal, perhaps the nikon does offer the most simple, albeit currently more expensive route to high image quality.

As this is the "Alt" forum, let me throw in that I consider the poor man 14-24 to be the Sigma 15-30. It's sharpest from 15-20. The build quality is better than the newer sigma ultrawides. (Few bad copies). Used about $200. It has the same no filter problem as the 14-24.
The 17-40L is a better all around lens. And the 14-24 is certainly a better lens. But for really cheap 15-20 goodness the Sigma can't be beat.

I still go for primes from 20ish-30mm. I'll use the 14-24 more at the high end when I can easily adjust aperture. But now I find it difficult to give up any sharpness when shooting on a tripod.
I need a sharp 20-40mm zoom. For landscape I like to shoot all zoom.

dcmiller wrote:
It seems for architecture, at some point, it might be easier to go back to just using a view camera. I think about a 24 x 48 sensor with a really good LCD like on the newer Canon's and Nikons.
.................
If the 14-24 was the lens I needed I might look at switching to the D3x. For what I do muddling along with that lens on Canon is fine.

I don't feel for going back to 4/5, really: glad the donkey-time has gone

2nd: As having some nice YCZ from 25 mm up, your idea doesn't tease me that much.
Finally - after years - to be saddisfied with my lens set-up - including the 14 - 24 - I'm not howling for another change.

How is using the Nikon G-EF adapter for interiors? I can see setting f16 and going wild with it outdoors but do you find it's a nuissance to be adjusting the aperture for repeatedly, possibly having it change it's setting during focus/zoom and require resetting or even retightening of the shims? I've read it's been designed to be tuned up but really wonder about the potential nuissance factor attendant with the demands of interior photography. My 14-24G is idle in it's box while I make up my mind as to which FF body to attach it to.
Landscapes are my passion, and interiors pay the bills, as you can see there's a lot riding on this..