hi folks,
normally post on the canon or landscape forum, but my question is more related here.
iam looking to drop some cash on the above lens for my 1dsmk2 with adapter.
as iam sure you are aware canon has qc problems with majority of there lenses, some better than others etc, ive been on the receiveing end of some samples.
so, does nikon with there glass have the same issues as canon or do we just moan more
i would like respsones if possible from users who have had issues with this lens or tried multi copys to pick a good one,
I've shot Nikon and canon and Nikon's QC is in another league. About half my canon glass had to go back for "calibration", no problems with Nikon. The 14-24 is really good and I don't think I've ever seen anyone get a bad copy.
parsons wrote:
true, but as iam not from the `dark side` iam not sure what problems you guys run in to with regards QC, like us canonians have to put up with
simon
Frankly I donno how you Canon shooters put up with that. Lens consistency really is a non-issue in Nikon world.
poisonpill wrote:
Frankly I donno how you Canon shooters put up with that. Lens consistency really is a non-issue in Nikon world.
Front or back focusing issues are definitely present on both camps and I am talking from experience. The tolerance so far is within the AF adjustment of the newer camera bodies, however. Sorry to bring some of you guys back to earth .
AGeoJO wrote:
Front or back focusing issues are definitely present on both camps and I am talking from experience. The tolerance so far is within the AF adjustment of the newer camera bodies, however. Sorry to bring some of you guys back to earth .
While Nikon may have some issues with some lenses it is not even close to the problems Canon seems to have. And I am talking from experience as well.
gvg45 wrote:
While Nikon may have some issues with some lenses it is not even close to the problems Canon seems to have. And I am talking from experience as well.
Greg, the key word, like you mentioned, is "seems". We do not know the ratio of out of calibration compared to good lenses on both camps and we are not talking the actual numbers here. Let's face it there are more Canon users out there than Nikon at this point although there is a definite shift of late. Plus, there are quite a bit of reported of soft lens cases that are actually user error cases or improper "testing" cases. Well, you know that....
AGeoJO wrote:
Greg, the key word, like you mentioned, is "seems". We do not know the ratio of out of calibration compared to good lenses on both camps and we are not talking the actual numbers here. Let's face it there are more Canon users out there than Nikon at this point although there is a definite shift of late. Plus, there are quite a bit of reported of soft lens cases that are actually user error cases or improper "testing" cases. Well, you know that....
Yes this, I don't know how many "soft lens" threads I have seen where the exif said the shot was 1/8 or 1/10 on 200+mm lenses lol
Just my $0.02, but I also have noticed a huge increase in quality control of lenses (and bodies, for that matter) when I moved from Canon to Nikon. I have yet to buy a single Nikon lens that has a QC issue. On the Canon side, it was normal and expected to have to go through a couple of copies to find a good one (ridiculous, especially for "L" class lenses!).
Tom (who has owned nearly every Canon DSLR and L-class lens)
AGeoJO wrote:
Greg, the key word, like you mentioned, is "seems". We do not know the ratio of out of calibration compared to good lenses on both camps and we are not talking the actual numbers here. Let's face it there are more Canon users out there than Nikon at this point although there is a definite shift of late. Plus, there are quite a bit of reported of soft lens cases that are actually user error cases or improper "testing" cases. Well, you know that....
You have a point that Canon has the numbers as far as shooters go. I am mostly speaking from my own experience using several lenses from both camps and what I read on various forums.
Tom Conte wrote:
Just my $0.02, but I also have noticed a huge increase in quality control of lenses (and bodies, for that matter) when I moved from Canon to Nikon. I have yet to buy a single Nikon lens that has a QC issue. On the Canon side, it was normal and expected to have to go through a couple of copies to find a good one (ridiculous, especially for "L" class lenses!).
Tom (who has owned nearly every Canon DSLR and L-class lens)
This has been my experience as well. I hope I'm not jinxing myself, but my experience with Nikon has been great. With Canon, I always had to expect to make a drive out to Irvine.....and sometimes multiple times for the same problem.
parsons wrote:
i would like respsones if possible from users who have had issues with this lens or tried multi copys to pick a good one,
Make sure you check the zoom ring for problems before buying. I tried four copies before I found one that worked smoothly, and the store manager where I bought it mentioned they had a couple of other customers return these lenses because of problems with the zoom mechanism.
Just about all my experience with Canon lenses was with manual focus. I considered their FD manual focus line as very high in quality and consistancy. Since moving to Nikon, I have purchased / used a fair number of Nikkor lenses, and have not had a problem.
One of my top reasons for switching was the QC problems I had with Canon bodies and lenses. So far I'm not disappointed (to say the least ).
At this moment the 14-24 is the sharpest (ultra) wide angle lens available. It's better than primes (Canon/Nikon, I'm not sure with Zeiss or Contax).
It's quite heavy (1kg!) and it doesn't takes filters (I'm still looking for a good solution). But it is shhaaarp!!
Was with canon for 4 years. Never once would I mail order a lens. I would always try out several copies to find a sharp one. I have mail ordered Nikon lenses and have no worries at all. Just my experience.
!
iam not sure what problems you guys run in to with regards QC, like us canonians have to put up with 