As far as price goes, Canon and Nikon are kind of back and forth. The 14L2 happens to be one of the pricier Canons. However, Nikon's longer primes are almost all more expensive than Canon's offerings. At least they were last time I checked. I agree with Dawei Ye^^^^, it's splitting hairs. The IQ of the 14L2 is excellent even if the Nikon 14-24 has a slight edge, it's not really that noticeable IMHO. Besides, the 14L2 will just pop on your Canon body and work, AF included.

If you have a close look at the posted nikon canon comparison shots, you will notice that the images are not focused at the same spot.
The Canon image is focussed further back, thus appearing softer at closer distances, whilst the Nikon image is focussed closer to the front of the image thus appearing softer at the back (near the alter area)
Have a look at the detail and sharpness of the cross in both images, the Nikon is softer than the Canon.
cheers
pk

JohnBrose wrote:
Nice ceiling David, is that your camera bag in lower right corner?

Thanks Peter, and yes, that was my camera bag.

David Nassim wrote:
JohnBrose wrote:
Nice ceiling David, is that your camera bag in lower right corner?

Thanks Peter, and yes, that was my camera bag.

Now if you had the 14-24 you could have zoomed to 18mm and your bag would magically have disappeared! See? Nikon is better ;-)

brainiac wrote:
David Nassim wrote:
JohnBrose wrote:
Nice ceiling David, is that your camera bag in lower right corner?

Thanks Peter, and yes, that was my camera bag.

Now if you had the 14-24 you could have zoomed to 18mm and your bag would magically have disappeared! See? Nikon is better ;-)

Hey Buddy,

At least with the Canon, it would fit in ur existing bag...

brainiac wrote:
big country wrote:
as you can see, very close, but the nikon is def. better.

For sharpness and contrast, certainly, but the Canon is far better for distortion and vignetting. With a 14mm lens, distortion and vignetting are quite important factors, since shots very often involve large spaces and straight lines, as your example here illustrates. On the strength of these shots that you have kindly shared, I'm not sure I wouldn't take the relatively small and light AF 14mm for use on Canon. The picture looks a lot better until you start peeping, and even then it's not an enormous difference. And presumably this is without DPP lens aberration correction. It's a hard decision.

You're going to have to help me see the sharpness win by Nikon. To my eyes, on my less than stellar work monitors, the alter looks sharper from the Canon. I'm looking at the vertical wood, the candles way in the back, etc.

I'm interested enough that I will look again when I get home and on a proper monitor.

sskoutas wrote:
brainiac wrote:
big country wrote:
as you can see, very close, but the nikon is def. better.

For sharpness and contrast, certainly, but the Canon is far better for distortion and vignetting. With a 14mm lens, distortion and vignetting are quite important factors, since shots very often involve large spaces and straight lines, as your example here illustrates. On the strength of these shots that you have kindly shared, I'm not sure I wouldn't take the relatively small and light AF 14mm for use on Canon. The picture looks a lot better until you start peeping, and even then it's not an enormous difference. And presumably this is without DPP lens aberration correction. It's a hard decision.

You're going to have to help me see the sharpness win by Nikon. To my eyes, on my less than stellar work monitors, the alter looks sharper from the Canon. I'm looking at the vertical wood, the candles way in the back, etc.

I'm interested enough that I will look again when I get home and on a proper monitor.


Yeah I would also be interested in another comparison between the 2 lenses.

sskoutas wrote:
You're going to have to help me see the sharpness win by Nikon.

What are you doing looking at the centre?? Don't you realise that pixels are best peeped in the corner? ;-) The Nikon is better in the corners, but as has been said, it looks like it might be focussed closer.

brainiac wrote:
sskoutas wrote:
You're going to have to help me see the sharpness win by Nikon.

What are you doing looking at the centre?? Don't you realise that pixels are best peeped in the corner? ;-) The Nikon is better in the corners, but as has been said, it looks like it might be focussed closer.

*laughing* Sorry... my eye accidentally traveled to the subject!

"Nice ceiling David, is that your camera bag in lower right corner?"

so that's the famous camera bag?

corndog wrote:
http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/



I have a good deal of respect and appreciation for Mark's testing and the development of the adapter, but I always recommend a second opinion. Now that I'm at home viewing the images on my own monitor, I can see that the comparison by Big Country between the 14/2.8 II and the 14-24/2.8 shows little difference in terms of sharpness between these two lenses. I don't see the extensive CA on the Canon lens in Big Country's samples that I see in Mark's comparison on 16-9.net. I think Mark had a bad sample (which does make one wonder if there's a considerable amount of variance between copies or if his copy was a fluke or a pre-production model).

At any rate, they are both excellent lenses, it appears. And the fact that the 14-24 is a zoom that performs this well speaks very well for Nikon.

I just took the plunge and purchased the 14L II (got a good deal, price was 2250 AUD on special, around the cost of a 100-400L in Australia)

The lens is weird. It's almost as if it has field curvature or something. DOF is very think despite the wide focal length

It is sharp at f/2.8, but DOF is very thin that it is difficult to get corner to corner sharpness (unless I have a misalinged element)

At f/2.8 the centre is VERY sharp. As sharp if not sharper than the 35L and 85L II. However the 35L and 85LII are way better at equivalent apertures. The 14L II is a bit disappointing at f/8 compared to the 35L, it is not soft, but just not mindblowingly sharp. The 35L I have is ridiculously sharp at f/8 corner to corner.

Still, I'm quite happy with the results.

Extreme Corner Test (Pelican logo top left, Manual Focus)

abam wrote:
"Nice ceiling David, is that your camera bag in lower right corner?"

so that's the famous camera bag?

yep

Dawei Ye wrote:
I just took the plunge and purchased the 14L II (got a good deal, price was 2250 AUD on special, around the cost of a 100-400L in Australia)

The lens is weird. It's almost as if it has field curvature or something. DOF is very think despite the wide focal length

It is sharp at f/2.8, but DOF is very thin that it is difficult to get corner to corner sharpness (unless I have a misalinged element)

At f/2.8 the centre is VERY sharp. As sharp if not sharper than the 35L and 85L II. However the 35L and 85LII are way better at equivalent apertures. The 14L II is a bit disappointing at f/8 compared to the 35L, it is not soft, but just not mindblowingly sharp. The 35L I have is ridiculously sharp at f/8 corner to corner.

Still, I'm quite happy with the results.

Extreme Corner Test (Pelican logo top left, Manual Focus)

Dawei Ye wrote:
I just took the plunge and purchased the 14L II (got a good deal, price was 2250 AUD on special, around the cost of a 100-400L in Australia)

The lens is weird. It's almost as if it has field curvature or something. DOF is very think despite the wide focal length

It is sharp at f/2.8, but DOF is very thin that it is difficult to get corner to corner sharpness (unless I have a misalinged element)

At f/2.8 the centre is VERY sharp. As sharp if not sharper than the 35L and 85L II. However the 35L and 85LII are way better at equivalent apertures. The 14L II is a bit disappointing at f/8 compared to the 35L, it is not soft, but just not mindblowingly sharp. The 35L I have is ridiculously sharp at f/8 corner to corner.

Still, I'm quite happy with the results.

<omitted pictures to save space>



Thanks for the images.

Interesting results. I'm worried that the left side of your image has some issues. I would test it with a relatively flat subject, tripod, mirror lockup, etc. See if the entire frame is sharp when you don't have to worry about parts of the image being outside of the focus plane.

Do you have a full-sized RAW or JPG image that could be downloaded or viewed?

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/Canon14L/index.html (although you have to pay for the info...), but essentially diglloyd had mentioned that the 14mm has some very interesting field curvature.

Dawei Ye wrote:
I just took the plunge and purchased the 14L II (got a good deal, price was 2250 AUD on special, around the cost of a 100-400L in Australia)

The lens is weird. It's almost as if it has field curvature or something. DOF is very think despite the wide focal length

It is sharp at f/2.8, but DOF is very thin that it is difficult to get corner to corner sharpness (unless I have a misalinged element)

At f/2.8 the centre is VERY sharp. As sharp if not sharper than the 35L and 85L II. However the 35L and 85LII are way better at equivalent apertures. The 14L II is a bit disappointing at f/8 compared to the 35L, it is not soft, but just not mindblowingly sharp. The 35L I have is ridiculously sharp at f/8 corner to corner.

Still, I'm quite happy with the results.


The lens when in focus is sharp wide open right to the corner except for about a centimeter or so as demonstrated above in the f/2.8 Crop (the left side of the Pelican logo. I focused on the centre of the Pelican logo)

I won't show centre because it is perfect.

Here's where it gets weird. I need to more testing on this though

This shot is at f/8. As seen above it is sharp corner to corner at f/8. But look at Crop D, it is horrible, but can be explained by DOF limitations, YET Crop B is even more outside DOF but way sharper. The lens is very weird, items that are close to the camera are extremely sharp, even when the camera is focused at infinity, yet items closer to infinity on the edges are OOF. It almost defies the laws of physics.

^PLEASE NOTE WITH CROP 4, IT IS MYSTERIOUS WHY THIS HAS HAPPENED BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE CAMERA STORE TEST IT IS TACK SHARP CORNER TO CORNER AT f/8
^That one is at f/8. The one below is at f/2.8 and Crop C is sharper , which suggests a DOF issue rather than sharpness issue

Here's the shot at f/2.8 (almost the same)

^You'd think that B would be more OOF than C. Maybe user error...



It's possible you're not seeing the smearing in crops 4/C in 3/B because 3/B is along the horizontal edge of the sensor which is not nearly as close to the extreme edge of the imaging circle, where image quality tends to fall apart, as the vertical edge from which 4/C are taken. Also, if there is field curvature (and it appears to be likely), then the railing is considerably closer than the object in the 4/C crops and benefits from the curvature. I'm curious how the right edge of the frame looks where the people are standing in comparison to the 4/C crops.

As someone else suggested, you really need to shoot a flat subject to determine how significant the field curvature is with the lens.

I haven't tried the 14II, so can't say if field curvature is normally an issue, but I own the 16-35II and notice significant field curvature with it. I can't photograph a flat wall at f/2.8 (or f/8) and expect it to hold critical focus to the edges. In this situation the lens is very frustrating. On the flip side I can use it to my benefit by placing close subjects around the frame edge and distance subjects in the center and all will appear in focus at a wide aperture.

You wrote: "The lens is very weird, items that are close to the camera are extremely sharp, even when the camera is focused at infinity, yet items closer to infinity on the edges are OOF. It almost defies the laws of physics."

This sounds a lot like field curvature to me, assuming the closer objects are located around the edge of the image. It could be worth focusing on a distant subject in the 4/C area using live view, then comparing how the center of the frame looks. I tried this with the 16-35 II wide open for a brick wall test and I can get the edges sharp, but then the center goes soft.

If edge to edge sharpness of a flat plane wide open is critical then I think the only Canon super-wide to successfully tackle this challenge is the new TS-E 17. If the 17 isn't wide enough, remember that you can stitch exposures shifted to the opposite extremes to capture an even wider angle of view.

Ron

Of the two church images the Canon image has more "pop" or 3D to my eye than the Nikon and nicer color rendering. The Nikon lens is an incredible zoom lens and would be a natural choice for a FF Nikon. ...but for Canon?? I'm not so sure. Canon all of a sudden has killer wide-angle lenses. 14L II, 17 TS-E, 24/1.4L II, 24 TS-E II. These lenses all offer something unique. Even the 16-35L II is a killer lens. There are just not too many reasons to go with an all manual lens on a Canon body these days.

I however still use my 17mm f/3.5 Zuiko but that's mainly because of the weight (or lack of it). ;-)

i am not a fan of the 16-35 II.

big country wrote:
i am not a fan of the 16-35 II.

Neither am I for photographing flat objects, therefore can't classify it as a killer lens.

If I'd thought a 14mm FoV is a must for me I'd buy a 14-24 and a D700.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yakim Peled wrote:
If I'd thought a 14mm FoV is a must for me I'd buy a 14-24 and a D700.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



That's exactly what I did

Great minds think alike.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

rscheffler wrote:
big country wrote:
i am not a fan of the 16-35 II.

Neither am I for photographing flat objects, therefore can't classify it as a killer lens.

It may have a littlel distortion at 16mm but:
www.16-9.net:
Canon 16-35mm II proves to be near-perfect for geometry at 18mm


The 16-35 II is not a perfect lens, but extremely good for a zoom lens.

Yakim Peled wrote:
If I'd thought a 14mm FoV is a must for me I'd buy a 14-24 and a D700.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



I thought about this, I even went as far as tried out my friend's D700 and 14-24G.

It was kind of like "meh" to me though. From how the lens is described I expected a miracle...but I found I like Canon files and the Canon ergonomics more (the devil you know) and I don't have the space too carry 3 bodies around with me on shoots

I think it's just a convenience thing for me, I just could not be bothered going down the Nikon route as I personally am not willing to tradeoff the bulk for CA-less corners. It would be awesome to have, but the tradeoff would be too much for me. the 14 f/2.8LII does what I need to it to do, though it would be nice if it could zoom though

If there was a Canon mount 14-24? I'd buy it instantly.