I am waiting on my Nikon G->EOS converter so I can get the Nikon 14-24. This lens sounds amazing and fills a critical need of mine on the wide side.
For the record, I have Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I love it for wide angle shots in low(ish) light. But the results are somewhat unsatisfying for landscape and similar uses.
george malamis wrote:
Dan, I don't want to get into a flame war. But if you read my post, I said that the 17-40 and the 16-35 are both the best. I think that the 17-40 is a fantastic lens which I've owned myself. To me, the 16-35 gives me more shooting options and is the reason its a part of my kit.
George, I don't want to get into a flame war either, and I don't think we're going that direction.
You probably noticed that I offered that the 16-35 is an excellent lens and offers particular areas of performance strength. However, thinking back to the OP's context ("I'm taking a trip to Yellowstone and would like the "best" wide angle for landscape") I was responding to the part of your message where you suggested that the excellent 16-35 "wins on performance."
In my view, either lens could "win on performance" depending upon your intended use. In the case of landscape photography I would not choose the 16-35 over the 17-40. The things that the 16-35 adds are of little or no value for the landscape photographer use that the OP asked about - these advantages are directed at other types of photography.
In this context the 17-40 could be said to have some specific advantages over the 16-35, though I'll stipulate ahead of time that the actual value of some of them might be limited. Some landscape photography advantages of the 17-40:
1. Smaller and lighter (not insignificant to some of us who do this work on foot, and sometimes on long backcountry trips.)
2. Less expensive.
3. Slightly (though certainly marginally) sharper at least in the center.
4. Wider focal length range.
5. Works as well into the corners when stopped down for typical landscape use.
Again, this is aimed back at the OP who asked specifically about landscape use.
Now, as I wrote earlier, if I (or the OP) planned to do a lot of shooting at f/2.8 (or even f/4 for that matter) I would sure consider the 16-35 on the basis of its advantages there. In fact, I have recommended the 16-35 to certain users in the past.
Take care,
Dan
Edited by danmitchell on Mar 19, 2008 at 08:12 AM GMT
Shane, nice shots. The 14mm doesn't have a lot of reviews out there so its nice to see some examples. The Distagon and Nikon are out of consideration for me, and I am not convinced that the Nikon is really superior to the Canon 14mm in real world applications anyway.
Thanks Wilson. Getting a lens that does not AF and has other mechanical limits is just not appealing to me in any way. And for anything other than pixel peeping, I can't see any difference. And even then, I'm not certainly convinced by listening to what "others" say more than what I see with my own two eyes...and photography is about taking photos after all. I enlarged the whole series, of which these were a small part and printed them... I can say that I'm 100% satisfied with both of these lenses and worth every pretty penny. And I use my lenses for a lot more than landscape so things have a fully functioning lens is critical. To each his own...
One more 14 shot from that series...in tighter for a little more drama assigned to the silos and less weight to the sky.
nburwell wrote:
I love my 17-40, but recently I have been playing around with the idea of upgrading to the 16-35 II. Although I won't really utilize the 2.8 aperture, the corner sharpness certainly would help me out when shooting landscapes with the aperture stopped down.
-Nick
I've seen no evidence stopped down, that the 16-35 II is any better for landscape work. Wide open and to about f/5.6 the 16-35 wins and has prime like centre sharpness. If you aren't interested in f/2.8 and want a a landscape lens you may not gain much at all. Also the 16-35 seems to do it's best in the 16-24 range.
Still trying to decide whether it's worth the cost. I would make use of the extra stop, but I have other lenses that can cover me for speed when I need it and if it's not going to make a noticeable difference stopped down over the 17-40 well ....
I'm the poster on this thread; I shoot full frame Canon and Nikon mounts, so I don't have a vested interest in which platform is better, just which one suits me better. I've ordered both the 16-35 and the 14-24, and will try them both this weekend and pick one. In the reviews I read, the Nikon is the sharper of the two, and frankly I'd rather shoot landscapes with the D3; nevertheless, the big bulb, fixed lens hood, and inability to use filters on the 14-24 are negative considerations for me personally. I'll have to see if the extra width and sharper pics, if actually true, outweigh those considerations. Keep you posted.
drisley wrote:
Beautiful pictures Shane. I especially like the 14mm silo pictures.
Thanks, and trying to show with the last batch of photos that at both ends of the 16-35II, the performance is great, and at a various f-stops...a killer lens.
Shane Canfield wrote:
.. Getting a lens that does not AF and has other mechanical limits is just not appealing to me in any way. And for anything other than pixel peeping, I can't see any difference. And even then, I'm not certainly convinced by listening to what "others" say more than what I see with my own two eyes...and photography is about taking photos after all.
You're on very thin ice here Shane...
You should be careful about making you own visual or value judgments. I've been put through the wringer by the Nikon boys telling me I don't really see what I see when it comes to Canon lenses performing well or Nikon gear not performing well as they tell me it does. You're in danger of exciting them, and they come out of nowhere to insure that you know - nikon good, canon bad. A drubbing could be in store for you..
While I once thought I'd buy the 14-24, my lust has cooled to indifference at this point. It' looks well built and purportedly is sharp, but to lose the AF and filter options (limited at best) it's no longer an object of desire. I've been drubbed and clubbed though, so I'm used to it..
