Of the two church images the Canon image has more "pop" or 3D to my eye than the Nikon and nicer color rendering. The Nikon lens is an incredible zoom lens and would be a natural choice for a FF Nikon. ...but for Canon?? I'm not so sure. Canon all of a sudden has killer wide-angle lenses. 14L II, 17 TS-E, 24/1.4L II, 24 TS-E II. These lenses all offer something unique. Even the 16-35L II is a killer lens. There are just not too many reasons to go with an all manual lens on a Canon body these days.
I however still use my 17mm f/3.5 Zuiko but that's mainly because of the weight (or lack of it). ;-)
Yakim Peled wrote:
If I'd thought a 14mm FoV is a must for me I'd buy a 14-24 and a D700.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I thought about this, I even went as far as tried out my friend's D700 and 14-24G.
It was kind of like "meh" to me though. From how the lens is described I expected a miracle...but I found I like Canon files and the Canon ergonomics more (the devil you know) and I don't have the space too carry 3 bodies around with me on shoots
I think it's just a convenience thing for me, I just could not be bothered going down the Nikon route as I personally am not willing to tradeoff the bulk for CA-less corners. It would be awesome to have, but the tradeoff would be too much for me. the 14 f/2.8LII does what I need to it to do, though it would be nice if it could zoom though
If there was a Canon mount 14-24? I'd buy it instantly.
Dawei Ye wrote:
Brainiac, sorry I forgot, I was using RAW with Peripheral Illumination correction enabled. I will redo some test shots with it disabled
OK - that explains the total lack of fall-off which would be very unusual in a lens this wide.
