wayne seltzer wrote:
Looking at its MTF relative to the 14-24G stopped down its resolution is no where close to the performance of the zoom at 24.
Wish they would dust off their legendary 28/1.4 old design, slap-on some nano-crystals and an aperture ring for us poor Canon folks! I much prefer 28/1.4 over 24/1.4.
That's very true: this lens - wide open at f1.4 - isn't quite as good as the zoom at f8: but for it to be anywhere near that performance is a miracle. How good will the faster prime be at f5.6?! The prospect of an adapted Nikon 24/1.4 v Canon 24L II v TSE shootout is very appealing. Winner takes on Zeiss 21mm old and new?
hubsand wrote:
That's very true: this lens - wide open at f1.4 - isn't quite as good as the zoom at f8: but for it to be anywhere near that performance is a miracle. How good will the faster prime be at f5.6?! The prospect of an adapted Nikon 24/1.4 v Canon 24L II v TSE shootout is very appealing. Winner takes on Zeiss 21mm old and new?
My bad, I got confused thinking the blue and red solid lines were f1.4 and f8 like Canon MTF's usually do, but they are 10 and 30 spatial freq lines.
But the 24 at f1.4 still doesn't match the zoom at 24 and f2.8.
Wish they would show f5.6 or f8 MTF graphs as well.
hubsand wrote:
It's not all sweetness and light: the 16-35m/2.8 VR looks like a mildly tweaked 17-35mm: nice, but it won't set the world on fire. It would be a bonus if it encouraged Canon to give full frame shooters more IS options.
But that new prime looks tasty . . . very impressive MTF data for f1.4. Whether if offers anything more (optically) than the 24L II remains to be seen.
Funny you should ask about selling out of the adaptor business . . .
It's a 16-35/4 VR actually, and is MUCH cheaper than the 14-24 and cheaper than the 17-35's list price. Not surprised if it's just a mild tweak, but what it is is a challenge to the 17-40L.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Looking at its MTF relative to the 14-24G stopped down its resolution is no where close to the performance of the zoom at 24.
Wish they would dust off their legendary 28/1.4 old design, slap-on some nano-crystals and an aperture ring for us poor Canon folks! I much prefer 28/1.4 over 24/1.4.
Can't sell the glass anymore, and the 28/1.4 would be more expensive due to using a hand-ground front element. It's not surprising that Nikon discontinued it right when it began to get popular, it was probably costing them money to make in anything more than small batches.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
...... You have to admit that it really works to Nikon's favor that their G lenses lack mechanical aperture rings. What a pain to deal with adapting.
That's not obvious. An argument could be made that many Canon shooters
would purchase Nikon lenses if easily adaptable, but have too much invested
in Canon to be willing to switch entire systems. So, Nikon gets zero dollars
from many Canon shooters. Is that more than made up for by the Canon
shooters who sell their gear and jump to the dark side? Hard to say.
mawz wrote:
It's a 16-35/4 VR actually, and is MUCH cheaper than the 14-24 and cheaper than the 17-35's list price. Not surprised if it's just a mild tweak, but what it is is a challenge to the 17-40L.
My bad this time: you're right: it's a 17-40L challenger, with IS. Just like the 17-40 and the Nikon 17-35/2.8, those corners still look iffy . . .
wayne seltzer wrote:
My bad, I got confused thinking the blue and red solid lines were f1.4 and f8 like Canon MTF's usually do, but they are 10 and 30 spatial freq lines.
But the 24 at f1.4 still doesn't match the zoom at 24 and f2.8.
Wish they would show f5.6 or f8 MTF graphs as well.
Showing all the MTF wide open prevents the kind of advance comparison we'd like to make! For a f1.4 lens, though, f2.8 is quite a long way stopped down . . . which is partly why the 24L always tests so well against slower equivalents. We'll have to wait to get our hands on it.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Hey, this is the prime that Sony is supposed to release as a Zeiss ZA! Come on already or else I will be tempted to switch to Nikon. They do have some very nice glass these days. Hopefully, the competition will make things better for all of us though I'm not happy with what seems to be a dramatic increase in the price of great glass. You have to admit that it really works to Nikon's favor that their G lenses lack mechanical aperture rings. What a pain to deal with adapting.
The ZA has long been rumoured to be a 25/1.4 or 1.5: it would be an entirely new design and likely a real benchmark. But it's been a long time coming . . . .
Adapting a G lens is no more troublesome that adapting an F lens: just slot on an adaptor. If you need AF, obviously it's a no-no, but actually 5D II video shooters find manual aperture control of Nikon lenses a big improvement in useability over the Canon versions.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Hey, this is the prime that Sony is supposed to release as a Zeiss ZA! Come on already or else I will be tempted to switch to Nikon.
Yes, I've been waiting for that oft-rumoured Zeiss ZA 25/1.4. If Sony doesn't get off it's butt and get more Zeiss lenses out, I might go over to Nikon instead of Sony, especially if Nikon produces the anticipated D700x (or D900, depending who's doing the rumour-mongering) with the 24 mp sensor.
I'll have to look at the new Nikon 24/1.4, and see if it provides what I'm looking for.
hubsand wrote:
The ZA has long been rumoured to be a 25/1.4 or 1.5: it would be an entirely new design and likely a real benchmark. But it's been a long time coming . . . .
Adapting a G lens is no more troublesome that adapting an F lens: just slot on an adaptor. If you need AF, obviously it's a no-no, but actually 5D II video shooters find manual aperture control of Nikon lenses a big improvement in useability over the Canon versions.
As you obviously know, adapting G lenses restricts adapter choice to something like ONE! and I think the adapter cost may be a bit more... then there is the little issue of not knowing the exact aperture one is setting but at least there is an option where one did not exist before.
Yes, I have just about given up hope for the wide angle Sony ZA.
I wonder what takes so long for a company to produce a worthy set of lenses?
Is it R&D (design)?
The manufacturing process itself?
Existing patients?
Marketing and profit making strategies (timed releases etc.)?
Projected unit sales (demand)?
And in what combination? I seriously wonder. I know very little about the lens industry.
Wow! $2200. Who needs VR in a 16-35? What about a moderately priced F2.8 instead? Conclusion: VR & F4 was cheaper to make than No VR and F2.8. And Nikon doesn't speak "Moderately Priced."
Only buy the 24 if you are going to use it at F1.4-F2.0. "Doesn't match the zoom at 24mm and F2.8" tells it all! I have the best hi ISO bodies (notably D3s) and don't find a need for faster-than-F2.8 in WA and UWA. My 24/35/50 Ls and 24/28/35 AIS stay at home.
SoundHound wrote:
"Doesn't match the zoom at 24mm and F2.8" tells it all!
Isn't it a bit early to jump to conclusions before actual lenses are available for reviews.
Is the price the factor for the new - yet to be available - 24mm f1.4 to be getting negative feedback already ?
mawz wrote:
Can't sell the glass anymore, and the 28/1.4 would be more expensive due to using a hand-ground front element. It's not surprising that Nikon discontinued it right when it began to get popular, it was probably costing them money to make in anything more than small batches.
Could Nikon design a new 28/1.4 that maybe had more elements, maybe more aspherical elements like this 24/1.4 but which has the performance of the old 28/1.4?
BTW, how does the old 28/1.4 compare to the 14-24G at 24mm at 2.8?
wayne seltzer wrote:
Could Nikon design a new 28/1.4 that maybe had more elements, maybe more aspherical elements like this 24/1.4 but which has the performance of the old 28/1.4?
BTW, how does the old 28/1.4 compare to the 14-24G at 24mm at 2.8?
From photozone mtf50 measurements, 14-24@24 is better than the old 28/1.4 at f2.8.
. No one tell this man the price of the Leica 24mm f1.4
and I think the adapter cost may be a bit more... then there is the little issue of not knowing the exact aperture one is setting but at least there is an option where one did not exist before.
