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

1 2 3

5 6 7 end

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

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

p.4 #1 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Breitling65 wrote:
Is this only setting it will be used as zoom lens? Same as to compare crocodile and horse, both could run

I would suggest to chech this FM thread shots for 16-35LII

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1055946/0

I do appreciated your perspective but.. My goal is to find a lens for landscape for taking pictures in the mountains. My 17-40 often is too long with mountains. ND grads don't work well in the mountains (no straight lines), CP don't work well on ultra wides for landscapses because they screw up the sky, it would be an unsual day if I used less than f8 for a landscape because I desire sharp and dept for most landscapes. I was not trying to compare lens for your need but mine. So you are right if inside use is what you want, the 16-35 is better but I don't want it inside, I want the widest, preferrable zoom, that takes excellent pictures at f8,f11, and f16. So comparing at f8 is right for the question posed at the beginning. Whats the point of comparing at 24 if I rarely use it and have 2 other lens that do well at this setting. Whats the point of comparing at f2.8 when this would be rare.

Nov 25, 2011 at 09:02 AM

eosfun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

So now you decided for the Nikon 14-24? Have EOSfun anyway!

Nov 25, 2011 at 10:00 AM

thw2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #3 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott Stoness wrote:
Here is a comparison of lens at widest angle/f8. At photozone.de

While I believe the Nikkor is very sharp, I do not think you can just quote numbers from Photozone.de. The Nikkor 14-24 was tested on 24 MP D3X, while Canon lenses were tested on 21 MP 5D2.

Nov 25, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Breitling65
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

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

Scott Stoness wrote:
I do appreciated your perspective but.. My goal is to find a lens for landscape for taking pictures in the mountains. My 17-40 often is too long with mountains. ND grads don't work well in the mountains (no straight lines), CP don't work well on ultra wides for landscapses because they screw up the sky, it would be an unsual day if I used less than f8 for a landscape because I desire sharp and dept for most landscapes. I was not trying to compare lens for your need but mine. So you are right if inside use is...Show more →

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1055946/0

Again, look on shots in link above. 16-35LII will be great option with AF and amazing colors out and also weathersealed. 17-40L will NOT match this anyhow and it needs better lights to match anyway even at F8. So, your argument with F2.8 is not valid, slower lenses need better lights to get out of noise and produce better IQ.
In general F8 is sweet aperture and any lens must be sharp with it. At least one I have does even nifty-fifty. Other lenses I don't suggest since never own them, possibly there is better lenses but I am owner of great 16-35LII and I don't need anything else

Enjoy!

Nov 25, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Schlotkins
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #5 · 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 →

I didn't get to the rest of this thread yet, but the 14-24 is way sharper than the 17-40 over the same focal lengths. I own both.

With that said, I am thinking about selling my 14-24. It's a big zoom so I usually don't take it on trips. It's awesome and if you need 14-17 it's a great lens. We just have too much ovelap and I think we are going to keep the 16-35II and the 17TSE.

Chris

Chris

Nov 25, 2011 at 12:59 PM

kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #6 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

I agree, with everything you say, except that lenses are sharp at f8, and using 50 1.8 as an example. corner sharpness on ultrawides on full frame is an issue in canon zoom lenses. and the 50 1.8 is one of the highest resolving lenses period. If you look at its resolution figures at f 4, 5.6, and 8, it out resolves most canon L prime and zoom lenses.
Breitling65 wrote:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1055946/0

Again, look on shots in link above. 16-35LII will be great option with AF and amazing colors out and also weathersealed. 17-40L will NOT match this anyhow and it needs better lights to match anyway even at F8. So, your argument with F2.8 is not valid, slower lenses need better lights to get out of noise and produce better IQ.
In general F8 is sweet aperture and any lens must be sharp with it. At least one I have does even nifty-fifty. Other lenses I don't suggest since never own them, possibly there is better lenses but I am owner of...Show more →

Nov 25, 2011 at 01:41 PM

matanuska
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #7 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott Stoness wrote:
Any advice? Will I notice the difference between any of these and 17-40 at F8 or F11?

No. I've owned all three and at that f range, their performance is virtually identicall. It's only wide open will you see the advantage of the Nikkor over the 16-35 L II. And despite all of the hyp, the corners of the Nikkor are not perfect at f/2.8 either. Better than the Canons no doubt, but still not perfect.

Nov 25, 2011 at 04:29 PM

matanuska
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #8 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Sp12 wrote:
Samyang 14, ZE 21, and a TSE IMO.

This in fact is the most surprising thing. That a $400 lens could hold its own and even deserve to be included in the same line up as the mighty Zeiss 21 Distagon!

Nov 25, 2011 at 04:31 PM

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

p.4 #9 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

In case its helpful to anyone else - here is my conclusions from reading lots of reviews and pouring over the numbers:

With the goal of; maximum iq, versatility in ultra low range, and ease of use for landscape photography (high depth usually) I have concluded:

1) The best zoom lens is the Nikor 14-24 on the Canon. It has the best IQ (CA, resolution, distortion) of all the available zooms. It is followed by a pack of lens - Tokina 16-28, Canon 16-35 2.8, Sigma 12-24 and Canon 17-40. They are all good lens but the Nikor is lots better and the rest are pretty close together in performance. However, the Nikor will not focus on the canon and requires an adapter. It also does not meter as well. But if you can put up with manual operation it is considerably better.

2) The Nikor 14-24 is also at resolving than Canon TS-17 , Canon 14L, and Samyang 14 2.8. Optically for resolution the Samyang 14 2.8 comes close to the Nikor 14-24 but lots more CA, distortion, and vignetting. The Canon 14L and TS17 are close in IQ performance with TS having less vignetting, distortion, etc and 14L slightly better IQ. Amazingly the Samyang if you can put up with variations on copy, lots of correctable vignetting and distortion, and manual operation with badly labled distances, is on paper better than the 14L - an amazing feat for for a lens that is an order of magnitude less expensive.

I started out the search looking for a bit wider (than my 17-40L), preferably zoom, with high quality for landscape with depth (f8,f11).

If I was starting out over, I would have both the Nikor 14-24 2.8 and the Canon 17TS F4.

The TS-17 is not wider than the 17-40 ( my current lens) but i) it is sharper than my current lens at 17mm in centre and corners, has very low distortion and vignetting, and with shift, I can get wider, and tilted. In addition, if I put it on my 7d it becomes a 28mmTS. The TS17 would straighten out the trees, that lean over at 17mm when I shoot.

The 14-24 Nikor 2.8 is wider, better Iq, and 2x as fast as my 17-40.

So now I will have to decide which one first. Because I can only get one christmas lens present.

Thanks all for your help above, I have narrowed down to 2 lens, and now I have to decide between the ultimate zoom or the ultimate tilt/shift.

Scott

Edited on Nov 28, 2011 at 08:39 PM · View previous versions

Nov 27, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Richard Nye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #10 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

I've never used the Nikor 14-24, but I would find it very difficult to believe it's "better optically than the Canon TS-17". That's one of Canon's best wide, prime lenses.

Nov 27, 2011 at 11:38 PM

ViscaB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #11 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Richard Nye wrote:
I've never used the Nikor 14-24, but I would find it very difficult to believe it's "better optically than the Canon TS-17". That's one of Canon's best wide, prime lenses.

The center performance of the 14-24 is better in my experience.

But the Tse-17 is a completely different beast. For architecture and city shots it's unique. There is no alternative from any other brand in 35mm. The 17 has very little distortion fitting its architecture function. Finally the 17 has almost no CA. Even when fully shifted!

A shift mechanism really gives you a lot of flexibility in composing an image. Whenever I use my non shift lenses these days I feel limited. If there is one downside to the tse-17 it is that you have to be careful to use it in wet conditions. Once the shift mechanism got stuck after using it in rainy weather.

Edited on Nov 28, 2011 at 12:05 AM · View previous versions

Nov 27, 2011 at 11:54 PM

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

p.4 #12 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

One of the reasons for me to give up the Nikkor 14-24mm is indeed the 17mm TS-E

Nov 28, 2011 at 12:03 AM

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

p.4 #13 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott -- I can't personally agree with your assessment, but you obviously have a different take on things.

Although I've heard good things about the IQ of 14-24, I've never had the desire to try it on Canon because of the "hassle factor" of no auto aperture, and even moving the aperture requires an expensive adapter. Add to that the lack of filters, and I would take the 16-35L II over it any day. But that's me.

Also, I wouldn't rate the Samyang so high, even though I have one and praise it. If I had a choice, I would take the Canon 14L II in a second. Poor focusing is the downfall of the Samyang -- I've spent about 15 hours this week figuring out exactly where my second copy focuses (and at what aperture -- seems like it might have slight forward focus shift when stopped down), and adding my own markings to the lens barrel. But for the price, it is an awesome deal and capable of some very fine photos, especially if you have LV (although LV isn't 100% guarantee).

I haven't used the 14-24, but I have used the 17TS, and I'm positive the 17 is sharper across (and beyond!) the frame. But the 17TS is awkward in its way, and terribly expensive, so it is nearly the last lens on my "Wanted List" (almost there!) -- again, I usually take the 16-35 unless I think I many have need of the shift.

Apparently YMMV!

Good luck finding the lens you want. Sounds like you are moving toward the 14-24, and I'm sure you'll like it after all this research.

Nov 28, 2011 at 12:40 AM

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

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

Richard Nye wrote:
I've never used the Nikor 14-24, but I would find it very difficult to believe it's "better optically than the Canon TS-17". That's one of Canon's best wide, prime lenses.

If you look on photozone.de. It shows tests of resolution that are 3-400 lines better, centre and edge, across the range of mm settings. the I agree that vignetting, and distortion is better in 17mm. But if you are just buying for resolution, the 14-24 looks better.

Nov 28, 2011 at 09:20 AM

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

p.4 #15 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott, please note that two different cameras were used for those separate tests

Nov 28, 2011 at 09:26 AM

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

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

Gunzorro wrote:
Scott -- I can't personally agree with your assessment, but you obviously have a different take on things.

Although I've heard good things about the IQ of 14-24, I've never had the desire to try it on Canon because of the "hassle factor" of no auto aperture, and even moving the aperture requires an expensive adapter. Add to that the lack of filters, and I would take the 16-35L II over it any day. But that's me.

Also, I wouldn't rate the Samyang so high, even though I have one and praise it. If I had a choice, I would take the...Show more →

I was not rating the Samyang so high in total, but it has resolution numbers significantly better than TS17. As I said, it has lots of distortion, lots of vignetting, mis-labled fstops, and copy issues, which would require lots of work arounds. I would buy the 14L before it. So we agree, but it is surpising for the price.

The photozone numbers do show that 14-24 is sharper than ts17. The photozone tests of 14-24 against 16-35 were consistent with the photozone tests (as well as others) so likely the photozone numbers are valid. Again this is surprising.

All said though the TS17 is a very good lens with much lower vignetting (correctable so not as critical), distortion (correctable so not as critical), has the ability of very large depth at F4 (tilt), has the ability to straighten trees out (shift) which probably make it equivalent of the 14mm in usability.

Nov 28, 2011 at 09:29 AM

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

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

AGeoJO wrote:
Scott, please note that two different cameras were used for those separate tests

.

Good point. 14-24 was on the best Nikon, vs TS17 on the best Canon. This could change my view of TS-17 vs 14-24, but I don't think so because 16:9 website shows the Nikon 14-24 on a Canon doing signifcantly better than the 16-35 Canon on a Canon, which validates the photozone numbers. But I will do some more checking to make sure that this is not what's causing the gap.

[ I just checked Tokina 16-28 2.8 on best Nikon vs best Canon and the variation was about 100, with Nikon being slightly better. The gaps mentioned above were more than 100, so this validates that the conclusion was appropriate]

Edited on Nov 28, 2011 at 09:51 AM · View previous versions

Nov 28, 2011 at 09:33 AM

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

p.4 #18 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott -- I don't judge or place over-emphasis on one set of results. I try to read as many reviews and tests as possible. Sample variation has an effect, even with a couple samples tested from the same reviewer. And as you see, different camera brands and MP sensors can have an influence.

So many factors!!

Both these (14-24, 17TS) are great lenses -- no argurment there -- as are pretty well all the lenses being discussed in your thread. For me, lens choice is based more on practical matters of overall handling, focal range, real world IQ, and ultimately how much they cost vs. how much I will use them.

Both are awkward and cumbersome and would not be my choice to go trudging around the woods mounted on the top of my tripod!

Just playing Devil's Advocate here -- you are on an awesome mission that we all enjoy.

Edited on Nov 28, 2011 at 09:43 AM · View previous versions

Nov 28, 2011 at 09:36 AM

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

p.4 #19 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Scott,
It seems like you already made up your mind and there is nothing wrong with it. Then by all means go with the Nikkor; it is really a great lens, no question about it. I was in your shoe before, I went for it myself, I actually went all the way, I bought a D700 when it first came out, plus 5-6 additional Nikkor pro lenses. I used both Canon and Nikon systems for 18 months. But at the end, I rather focus on photography itself rather than on the gear portion. I sold my Nikon system and just concentrate on one system and really get to know the system better that I feel comfortable with. I can say now "been there, done that"

. Good luck!

Nov 28, 2011 at 09:42 AM

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

p.4 #20 · 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24

Gunzorro wrote:
Scott -- I don't judge or place over-emphasis on one set of results. I try to read as many reviews and tests as possible. Sample variation has an effect, even with a couple samples tested from the same reviewer.

Both these are great lenses -- no argurment there -- as are pretty well all the lenses being discussed in your thread. For me, lens choice is based more on practical matters of overall handling, focal range, real world IQ, and ultimately how much they cost vs. how much I will use them.

Gunzorro: I agree. Me too on lots of reviews and practical matters. I was just trying to establish what the facts are. At this moment now that I have narrowed it down between TS17 and 14-24 Nikor, it comes down to is Tilt/Shift/longer/fixed_mm worth taking a modest hit on resolution. If I was hiking, 14-24 is more versatile. If I want the best picture, at 14-17, I suspect the tilt shift would produce better because the 14mm would be distorted and you could use F5.6 for lots of depth but would require F11 on the 14-24 plus lots of fussing because of Nikon on Canon.

Nov 28, 2011 at 09:44 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 end