I've owned all the lenses that you're considering (and still do, except for the adapted 14-24mm), and I ended up selling the 14-24mm because I use the 17-40mm much more (it's pretty good at f/8). For my purposes, the 14-24mm is over-hyped, particularly given the annoyances on a Canon mount. It's essentially the Samyang with Zoom -- not a bad lens at all, but with severe enough distortion that it wouldn't suffice for me. Please take into consideration that 16:9 is the maker of the adapter for that lens, so their possible bias should be taken into account.
The 14-24mm is the best wide-angle zoom made by anyone (which is no small thing), but it isn't as good as the 14mm II for my needs (the 14-24mm may be sharper by a little, but it's high level of distortion must be considered). I don't believe the 14-24mm is even sharper tested on the same camera body. On my 1Ds III, I saw no sharpness advantage for the adapted 14-24mm (slightly the reverse but comparable). The 14mm wasn't bested in anything (other than zoom), so I sold the 14-24mm for the slightly better IQ, AF, faster aperture -- but mostly less distortion). The 17mm TSE was superior in every way to the 14-24mm, again except for the zoom (and faster aperture in that case). That one really is no contest.
AGeoJO wrote:
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!...Show more →
I still have not decided, I am concerned that I am fussing too much as well. The good news is that both these lens hold their value.
I appreciate your views - the question is whether the 14-24 or TS17, is enough an improvement to even worry about. Fiddling in the dark waiting for the sun to come up, with tilting/shifting and/or odd behaviour of a Nikon lens on a Canon body might not be a good plan.
jffielde wrote:
The 14-24mm is the best wide-angle zoom made by anyone (which is no small thing), but it isn't as good as the 14mm II for my needs (the 14-24mm may be sharper by a little, but it's high level of distortion must be considered). I don't believe the 14-24mm is even sharper tested on the same camera body. On my 1Ds III, I saw no sharpness advantage for the adapted 14-24mm (slightly the reverse but comparable). The 14mm wasn't bested in anything (other than zoom), so I sold the 14-24mm for the slightly better IQ, AF, faster aperture -- but mostly less distortion). The 17mm TSE was superior in every way to the 14-24mm, again except for the zoom (and faster aperture in that case). That one really is no contest....Show more →
Thanks iffielde: I appreciate actual experience advice. Scott
The use of the adapter on the 14-24mm means that the pressed weather seal on the Nikon must be removed. That means the Nikon must be disassembled to replace the seal in case you want to return it, which would likely void the warranty. Not entirely risk free.
Scott -- Thanks for the debate and dialog and keeping an open mind.
I know it's easy to pontificate to others , so . . . If I were in your shoes, I'd immediately find the best deal on the Samyang 14 (whichever version is cheapest, I bought from Beach Camera for I think $329 with free shipping). Keep your 17-40 (which is a pretty fair lens) and match that to the superior IQ of the Samyang for now, and do a lot of comparisons for the types of shooting you intend. Even if you don't keep the Samyang, it will give you an excellent experience of the 14mm in case you do pursue the Nikon (or Canon L). For nature/landscape, I just don't see the need for the 17TS unless you shoot places like Yosemite regularly with its towering architectural-type formations. Typically I don't need shift much, except for tall structures, and tilt is very hard in landscape to find everything along the same plane of focus -- not saying it's a bad lens or not useful, but how much? I could spend all day outdoors with the 14 and 16-35L II and be happy with my shots. I'm sure the 17-40 will be nearly as good for you.
You initially stated your desire for wider angle, and that Samyang will fulfill that need and put your further toward your ultimate equipment package.
I might disagree on the utility of the TSE, which is incredibly useful to me, in almost every landscape. I like being able to shift to correct verticals (which appear constantly in nature in the form of trees!) or to get something in or out of the photo. I think the TSEs are the best landscaping lenses made, but that's purely subjectively how I use them.
jffielde -- I really agree with what you are saying. Sorry, it's just a matter of emphasis. I love my 24TSE II and look forward to getting the 17TSE. I come from a 4x5 background, so it's impossible to not love these lenses. I wish I could get the 45 and 90 some day!
But, by and large, most people who've not used these lenses so much, might do nearly as well with UWA's and limited PP perspective correction. Just saying, not advocating.
If I'm advocating, then I want everyone to buy TS lenses so they are always available to me!
Scott, you will not be disappointed with the 17 TS-E. I had a similar struggle as you when I finally decided on the 24 TS-E II and I love that lens. It takes amazing photos. The tilt/shift function is a bonus that you will learn to appreciate. It really adds a very useful dimension to your photography. I did check on the-digital-picture to verify the Nikon 14-24 was sharper than the 17 TS-E and according to their tests it is. But the 17 TS-E is plenty sharp with great colors, contrast and no CA. I will be selling my 16-35 f/2.8 and getting a 17 TS-E someday. I never fell in love with the 16-35. But I had an instant love affair with the 24 TS-E II.
Good luck in your decision, and let us know what you decide!
The center looks sharper, but the corners are better with all of the canon primes at landscaping apertures (and the distortion of the Nikon is apparent):
jffielde: I based my conclusion on the photozone.de, not "the digital picture" ISO's. However I reviewed the photozone comparisons. The photozone generally concludes that the 14-24 has better resolution but worse distortion (which is correctable). The trouble I had with the ISO comparisons is that they were not mathematical and hard to objectively compare. However I agree that the ISO's above show more distortion for 14-24. I gave more weight to resolution than distortion. If you give equal weight to distortion and resolution and CA, the 14-24, 14L and 17TS lens would be closer. I also gave more weight in my mind to a zoom being more useful for hiking in the woods than a prime. Sometimes its not possible to hike further or closer.
For example
Photozone shows 3510 for extreme edges for 14-24, vs 3025 for 14L at f8
Photozone shows 3.91% distortion vs 1.73% for 14-24, 14L respectively
Photozone shows 1.14 vs 1.37 for chromo distortion.
- I think you are seing the distortion difference.
- 14-24 can resolve more but needs more fixing.
I considered that "the digital picture" might have a either a bad lens copy or bad focus, but in reading the description of the testing procedure (taking the best of 10 or so), bad testing seems unlikely. Possiblly still bad copy though.
The question is how much will the difference be translated into real life shots.... if any . Seriously, there are other shooting circumstances that may lead to better or worse or different images than just sheer sharpness/resolution.
The results in Photozone cannot be compared across different platforms, this is something the reviewers themselves have emphasized over and over again. But it sounds like you have already made up your mind and cannot be convinced otherwise.
Why not just go out, rent/buy a bunch of lenses and test them yourself?
thw2 wrote:
The results in Photozone cannot be compared across different platforms, this is something the reviewers themselves have emphasized over and over again. But it sounds like you have already made up your mind and cannot be convinced otherwise.
Why not just go out, rent/buy a bunch of lenses and test them yourself?
The reason that photozone cannot be compared across different platforms is that i) a Nikon d3 might have better resolving than a Canon 1diii, or vice versa, or ii) the space on 14-24 might not work on Canon 1div. However, for i) I have checked and the nikon is about 100 better (likely bigger pixels) and this does not change the conclusions, and ii) I checked the on 16:9 which used a 1dIII 14-24 and 14L, and it confirms the gaps (although as indicated in one of the posts, 16:9 has incentive to have a bias because he sells an adapter for this)
I cannot afford the time and money to try all these lens and I don't have the equipment for it anyway.
I think the more useful complaint is that how do you weight distortion vs CA, vs vignetting, vs resolution. The ISO charts from the digital picture have nicer corner images for 14L than 12-24 for example, even if they might have lessor resolving power.
Scott, may I suggest you go back and read my post from last page. You are splitting hair here. optically, the lenses are going to be fine. there are pluses and minuses with each. with sharpness however, you will not be able to tell them apart at any size print. and remember the 14-24 is measure on d3x which has a higher pixel density.
At the end of the day you have to decide if you will be happy with a manual focus zoom adapted to canon, or a tilt shift lens. Or buy both I suppose. I will assure you, within their focal range, your images will not suffer secondary to your equipment.
kevindar wrote:
Scott, may I suggest you go back and read my post from last page. You are splitting hair here. optically, the lenses are going to be fine. there are pluses and minuses with each. with sharpness however, you will not be able to tell them apart at any size print. and remember the 14-24 is measure on d3x which has a higher pixel density.
At the end of the day you have to decide if you will be happy with a manual focus zoom adapted to canon, or a tilt shift lens. Or buy both I suppose. I will assure you, within their focal range, your images will not suffer secondary to your equipment....Show more →
I realize I am pursuing too much precision. There is not a big difference between 16-35 and 14-24 except that 14-24 is wider and very manual and 16-35 is longer and not very manual. And the number one knocks against the 17TS and 14L is that they are primes and I will have to carry more lens.
I just like to over-research.
I have decided to go for the tilt shift lens TSe-17. I have informed my wife what my christmas present will be.
I have decided that 14-24 is too manual, 16-35 is not much different for my shooting style than the 17-40L. And the 14L is too specific (14mm) [ditto samyang] without the benefits of tilt shift.
I really appreciate all the back and forth on this site. I learned a lot about photozone, the-digital-picture, distortion, resolution, and ca, by all the back and forth.
I love my 17 TS-E! Great choice! Great deal! I am sure a lot of people who miss the deals Canon has right now will be very sad when they decide to buy an L series lens in the next few months
. Good luck!
, so . . . If I were in your shoes, I'd immediately find the best deal on the Samyang 14 (whichever version is cheapest, I bought from Beach Camera for I think $329 with free shipping). Keep your 17-40 (which is a pretty fair lens) and match that to the superior IQ of the Samyang for now, and do a lot of comparisons for the types of shooting you intend. Even if you don't keep the Samyang, it will give you an excellent experience of the 14mm in case you do pursue the Nikon (or Canon L). For nature/landscape, I just don't see the need for the 17TS unless you shoot places like Yosemite regularly with its towering architectural-type formations. Typically I don't need shift much, except for tall structures, and tilt is very hard in landscape to find everything along the same plane of focus -- not saying it's a bad lens or not useful, but how much? I could spend all day outdoors with the 14 and 16-35L II and be happy with my shots. I'm sure the 17-40 will be nearly as good for you.