fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 … 6 7 end

Archive 2011 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Tokina 16-28 f2.8:
- According to Kenrockwell.com, is similar in Iq to 16-35 ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/16-28mm.htm ) but 16-35 is lighter and more amenable to filters
- According to Photozone, at f2.8, Tokina is better than 16-35 in all image aspects, but has manufacturing quality control issues, such that 25% have centreing issues. (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff?start=1 ) with 3/5 stars for optical quality compared to 2.5 for 16-35 and 5/5 for TS17.
- The-digital-picture ISO comparisons shows it to be be pretty close to 16-35 ( http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=773&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4 ) Same site ISO shows TS17 better than Tokina at f8.

So this suggests that 16-28 Tokina is a bit better or even (if you get a good copy) than 16-35 but not as good as TS17.

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Sp12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott Stoness wrote:
Anyone have thoughts on 14L ? Would you choose it over the 17TS?

It's OK. Much more expensive and not nearly as good optically as the Samyang, but has AE and AF if that's important you. For that money I would definitely be getting the 17TS.

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:13 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Photozone says - optical quality Samyang 14 2.8 is 4/5 Better than Tokina, 16-35 and less than TS17. But has complex distortion for architecture shots that is hard to fix. (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff?start=2 ). This confirms my understanding of the lens as being really really good for the dollar but with lots of rough edges.

Kenrockwell.com says 14L is better and Samyang is quite soft. A good low budget lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/samyang/14mm-f28.htm

ISO on the digital pictures shows ts17 being way better. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=454&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=769&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Rajan Parrikar wrote:
They are very different lenses. I have both, and find the TS-17 to be much more versatile. It can handle interior/exterior architecture and landscape. The 14LII is a fine optic, one that I use in special situations. If I had to pick only one, it would be the TS-17. But the call has to be based on your specific shooting needs and style.

Thanks Ranjan. I would only use the 14 on a low number of occasions . Thats why I was leaning to the choice being 14-24 Nikor or TS17. TS17 being the best of Canon for IQ and able to do shift and tilt and if I want the best zoom Nikor 14-24.

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Incidently when I look at Nikor 14-24 2.8 vs TS17, on the-digital-picture.com, the TS17 is way better. I am not sure that is a fair comparison though 17 vs 14. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=487&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Did it again at 17 on TS17 and 18 on 14-24 at f8 and they are pretty comparible. So 14-24 is not very sharp at 14. Less sharp in 14L and even the Samyang 14 at 14mm. Comparing to 17-40L at f8, Nikkor 14-24 might be slightly better.

Conclusion: Primes are sharper - no surprise. And although 14-24 is pretty good zoom it is not nearly as good as 14L at 14 or 17TS at 17.

Which takes me to the tentative conclusion - 14-24 is not that much better than 17-40L. So if I want better its either 14L or 17TS.

Edited on Nov 23, 2011 at 10:43 PM · View previous versions

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Sp12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott Stoness wrote:
Photozone says - optical quality Samyang 14 2.8 is 4/5 Better than Tokina, 16-35 and less than TS17. But has complex distortion for architecture shots that is hard to fix. (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff?start=2 ). This confirms my understanding of the lens as being really really good for the dollar but with lots of rough edges.

If you check out the MTF figures from the individual reviews on Photozone it actually scores higher than the 17TSE by quite a bit, not to mention smacking it around for CA correction. The "star rating" is misleading in that the Samyang gets knocked entirely for distortion, an issue I've never had a real issue with. The distortion was an issue when it came out but there's LR profiles out that correct it perfectly with IQ still above the level of the ZE21, so I consider it perfectly corrected in terms of distortion for my use.

Kenrockwell.com says 14L is better and Samyang is quite soft. A good low budget lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/samyang/14mm-f28.htm Ken's review is the only one I"m able to find saying the Samyang is anything less than spectacular, leading me to believe it's a bad copy issue. Not that I consider KR a usable resource anyway from his 14-24 and Tokina 16-28 reviews, both of which suggest that the 14-24 is better than anything from Canon and everything from Nikon but the 16-35.

ISO on the digital pictures shows ts17 being way better. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=454&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=769&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Examine the blur patterns on the F2.8 shots on the 14L and Samyang 14. Though the Samyang is still a bit sharper, we see what appears to be guassian blur surrounding the high contrast edges. Compare that to the shots of some of well-known mediocre lenses (24-85, 28/1.8) and you see an entirely different blur pattern (radial streaking), which leads me to believe there's a focus error in that test on both the 14L and Samyang.

Did it again at 17 on TS17 and 18 on 14-24 at f8 and they are pretty comparible. So 14-24 is not very sharp at 14. Less sharp in 14L and even the Samyang 14 at 14mm. Comparing to 17-40L at f8, Nikkor 14-24 might be slightly better.

Clearly this is wrong as it goes against both Ken's and Photozone's review. Or maybe they're wrong. Or maybe online reviews are a mediocre and inconsistent (focus error and sample variation) way of comparing lenses.

Edited on Nov 23, 2011 at 10:47 PM · View previous versions

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Sp12 wrote:
If you check out the MTF figures from the individual reviews on Photozone it actually scores higher than the 17TSE by quite a bit, not to mention smacking it around for CA correction. The "star rating" is misleading in that the Samyang gets knocked entirely for distortion, an issue I've never had a real issue with. The distortion was an issue when it came out but there's LR profiles out that correct it perfectly with IQ still above the level of the ZE21, so I consider it perfectly corrected in terms of distortion for my use.

Ken's review is the...Show more →

Thanks SP12 - back to the analysis. Much appreciated. Scott

SP12 - when I compare 14 Canon vs 14 Samsung in the iso again, the Canon looks quite a bit sharper at F8. You sure you did not get the backward. I agree that the tests require proper focus/exposure and that is the risk, even if I am right. Same outcome when I compare TS17 with Samyang 14, TS 17 is better.

Edited on Nov 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM · View previous versions

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott -- take a look at the Rokinon (Samyang) 14/2.8 thread on the Alt Forum.

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Sp12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott Stoness wrote:
Thanks SP12 - back to the analysis. Much appreciated. Scott

Maybe I'm just confused, but when did we stop analyzing evidence. I'd like to hear your response on the conflicting KR and Photozone reviews as to the Nikon 14-24 vs 16-35, as well as the ridiculous variation (from basically trash to one of the top 5 lenses ever) we're seeing on the Samyang 14 reviews.

To quote Ken: This 14-24mm is significantly sharper than any other fixed or zoom ultrawide from Canon or Nikon that I've ever used, and I've used both Canon and Nikon's 14mm, 18mm and ultra-wide zoom lenses extensively.", which clearly contradicts the TDP crops you linked to in your previous post.

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Sp12 wrote:
Maybe I'm just confused, but when did we stop analyzing evidence. I'd like to hear your response on the conflicting KR and Photozone reviews as to the Nikon 14-24 vs 16-35, as well as the ridiculous variation (from basically trash to one of the top 5 lenses ever) we're seeing on the Samyang 14 reviews.

To quote Ken: This 14-24mm is significantly sharper than any other fixed or zoom ultrawide from Canon or Nikon that I've ever used, and I've used both Canon and Nikon's 14mm, 18mm and ultra-wide zoom lenses extensively.", which clearly contradicts the TDP crops you linked to...Show more →

I agree SP12, the sites are all pointing in different directions. Which either means variations in copy, or errors in testing. The ISO test clearly show to me that Canon 14 and 17 are better but that depends on the Samyang being properly focussed. At which point, I struggle with what is the best choice for IQ.

Nov 23, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Gunzorro wrote:
Scott -- take a look at the Rokinon (Samyang) 14/2.8 thread on the Alt Forum.

Thanks Gunzorro.

Nov 23, 2011 at 11:03 PM

Guest

Guest

p.2 #12 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott Stoness wrote:
Incidently when I look at Nikor 14-24 2.8 vs TS17, on the-digital-picture.com, the TS17 is way better. I am not sure that is a fair comparison though 17 vs 14. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=487&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Did it again at 17 on TS17 and 18 on 14-24 at f8 and they are pretty comparible. So 14-24 is not very sharp at 14. Less sharp in 14L and even the Samyang 14 at 14mm. Comparing to 17-40L at f8, Nikkor 14-24 might be slightly better.

Conclusion: Primes are sharper - no surprise. And although 14-24 is pretty good zoom it is not nearly as good as...Show more →
14-24 is awesome. I saw some pictures a local AFP guy (that also sends pics for our paper as a part timer) did at the Bolshoi theater before the opening, and it's unbelievable. Most shot wide open at 14mm but all sharp on his new D3S. A level of performance most can only dream of.

Nov 24, 2011 at 07:57 AM

Scott Stoness
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Snopchenko: Your statement is consistent with what I have read about this image. However, my confusion is that when I look at f8, Canon 14mm vs 14-24, the Canon 14/2.8 does much better in the ISO test pages. So does the 17TS. I will have to re-read the reviews on14-24 maybe it suffers a bit at 14mm. Even when I compare 14-24 to 17-40 at f8 (17 vs 18mm), they look pretty close. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=4

I will re-read the reviews I have seen again, to see what I am missing.

Clearly the 14-24 is wider and faster than the 17-40. But better IQ is not obvious from the ISO tests.

On the 16-35, the 14-24 is similar at f8 and 14-24 is better at f2.8. But I would rarely use f2.8.

Thanks, Scott

Nov 24, 2011 at 09:02 AM

Sp12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

My personal opinion is that the TDP review is flawed for many lenses. I've used the 14-24 for Canon and it's easily much sharper than the 17-40L. I've also used (and now own) the Samyang and find it's superbly sharp in line with the Photozone MTF results. I've also used the 17TSE and found it much better than the 17-40, but not as good as the Samyang or 24 TSE.

Nov 24, 2011 at 09:33 AM

Gib Robinson
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott,

I use the 14-24 with a 1D4. The image quality is excellent. If you are shooting FF, you will see some additional distortion but, in my experience, it is both correctable and not distracting in landscape work in the way it would be in architecture, where it would need to be corrected.

Aside from general IQ, the big plus for the 14-24 is its range. Rather than carrying several lenses for that range, I can simply carry one and, as I'm sure you know, the difference between 14 and 24 in landscape work is huge.

The big downside is that the 14-24 can not be fitted with a filter, although there are workarounds which I have not yet tried.

Other lenses I find useful at the wide end are a Zeiss Distagon 21 which I use on a Leica M9 and a Leica R 21-35 which I use on my 1DIV. I plan to move to FF this spring if the 1D X fulfills its potential with respect to IQ. I am still likely to keep the 14-24 for high-drama WA shots.

I have owned a TSE-24 which is a spectacular lens. I just don't use the T-S enough to warrant keeping it. I assume the 17mm would be similar in quality.

Nov 24, 2011 at 09:35 AM

ViscaB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Gib Robinson wrote:
I have owned a TSE-24 which is a spectacular lens. I just don't use the T-S enough to warrant keeping it. I assume the 17mm would be similar in quality.

The ts-E 24 II has fantastic center performance but the tse-17 beats it in the corners. This is my experience and I have read about several photographers who confirm it. Possibly it's field curvature.

The tse-17 ridiculously sharp in the corners. Fully shifted it beats even it beats a lens like the 17-40.

Nov 24, 2011 at 11:03 AM

jffielde
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

In my own experience, the TSE-17, Zeiss 21 and TSE-24mm are optically superior to the 14-24 by a good bit. The 14mm II is at least as good as the 14-24mm but little if any better -- they are comparable. The 17-40 and 16-35 are fully comparable to one another and both a good bit worse than the 14-24mm.

Nov 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Snopchenko wrote:
14-24 is awesome. I saw some pictures a local AFP guy (that also sends pics for our paper as a part timer) did at the Bolshoi theater before the opening, and it's unbelievable. Most shot wide open at 14mm but all sharp on his new D3S. A level of performance most can only dream of.

Yes, that Nikkor lens is a great performer. It managed to lure me over single handedly to try out Nikon gear a few years back. Especially, when I compared that Nikkor lens to my bad copy of 16-35mm Mark II back then. It may sound like a broken record to some folks but my current copy of the 16-35mm Mark II is really good and it gives the Nikkor a run for its money. I couldn't tell the difference between the two lenses at f/5.6 while at f/2.8 the Nikkor edges out the Canon in the corners. At f/8.0 the center part of the image taken with the Canon is actually sharper than that from the Nikkor. That was enough for me that I gave up that Nikkor lens entirely, and actually the entire Nikon system. Yes, I do have and use the 17mm TS-E and 24mm TS-E Mark II to take advandtage of the TS effect, if necessary.

If you see great images taken with the Nikkor lens or any lens for that matter, sometimes you don't realize how much effort was put into those images. Not only the capturing part but mostly the post processing part. What I am trying to say is, while gear plays a significant role but the photographer and his/her PP skill plays a more significant role. At least, that's IMHO. This pertains more you what you wrote above " A level of performance most can only dream of." - Were you referring to the gear he uses or his overall photography skill in making those images and PP skill?

Nov 24, 2011 at 11:47 AM

kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott, I own the samyang 14, Nikon 14-24, canon 16-35II, canon 2ttse, and have owned 17-40.
1. Forget about 14L. Look at the photozone figures comparing the 14L and samyang. the 14L has less distrotion, and a little less vignetting wide open, and thats about it. the samyang 14 matches or beats it in every way. I have an ACR profile for distortion. its a fantastic lens, and a fraction of a cost of 14L.
The Nikon 14-24 is an absolute gem optically. It has 2 weaknesses, lack of filter, and flare prone. wide open, samyang is slightly sharper in the corner, but by 5.6, nikon catches up and it then exceeds the samyang. Its of course manual focus, and you need an adapter.
If you find 17 not wide enough, the 17 ts would only work if you are willing to stitch, and its not a super bright lens. Optically its fantastic. I would say between samyang 14, 17 ts, and nikon 14-24, the color and microcontrast of the latter 2 is a bit better, but sharpness you cant tell them apart even at 100%. with samyang, you get cheap and ultra wide, with Nikon you get zoom, with ts you get ts funcionality.
I have a comparison of 16-35II and 14-24 http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=36845899 the nikon is better even at f11, but they are close. Wide open in the corners, there is no comparison. In return, the canon is much less flare prone, takes filters, is weather sealed, has a great range, good star burst, has autofocus, is smaller and lighter, is a more useful range (for me), aberrations are easy to fix in acr due to profile, and again, at f11, they are very close. It remains my most used ultrawide landscape/indoor lens.

Nov 24, 2011 at 11:52 AM

bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

I don't care about filters either at the wide end i.e. 14-24 range. I would rather use the grad filter in Lightroom 3 which works really well. However, a polarizer works well between 28-40 .... and ND filters are a great tool for seascapes and waterfalls.

Scott Stoness wrote:
bobbytan: I agree that 17-40 L is a fail safe lens and likely the 16-35 would be too. Set it at f11 near infinity on manual and it always works. Thats what makes me nervous about TS17 and 14-24, lots of fussing and mostly I am in the dark waiting for the sun. I dont use filters - CP screws up the sky in an ultra wide (1/2 blue 1/2 not) and I use 3 autobrackets/blending/hdr to avoid fussing with filters. Thanks Scott

Nov 24, 2011 at 12:07 PM

1 2 3 … 6 7 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 6 7 end