p.2 #1 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Ian,
Thanks. I agree that the D3X would solve this entire issue. However, even used, you are probably looking at $6,000. Not in my budget right now. As for renting the 14-24, not a bad idea, however, I think I would just buy it used and be able to use it an extended period of time. If I find it lacking, I could always sell it for almost what I paid for it, the difference would probably be less than the rental.
You also seem to be saying that the 4MP difference may not be that big of a difference for me. I wish I knew that.
Lastly, I agree about the adaptor. I am pretty sure that the adaptor would allow me to compare both bodies to see if there is any significant difference.
p.2 #2 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
J4644 wrote:
Ian,
You also seem to be saying that the 4MP difference may not be that big of a difference for me. I wish I knew that.
Lastly, I agree about the adaptor. I am pretty sure that the adaptor would allow me to compare both bodies to see if there is any significant difference.
Thanks,
Jim
Just going by the nearest Canon equiv. on res. I've read alot of times wher 5D owners have upped to a 1Ds2 and said in res terms that they noticed no real difference. 1Ds2 much better in all other ways though. lots even say they could not tell from the 5D to 5D2 at normal print sizes
I guess it all depends on how large your output to be. if your going to sit allday veiwng at 100% (I know some like to) then the smaller file will be better as your going to see less issues. If you want to print huge then the file wants to be bigger. (dont know if 4mp will make that much difference)
p.2 #4 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
My 2¢: while the 14-24/2.8 is a great lens, I find mine not so useful for a lot of things. I'm not wild about it for most landscapes due to its inability to use filters (I use CPol and GNDs quite often for landscapes, and the Lee holder for the 14-24 is still vaporware AFAIK), so I picked up a 17-35/2.8 and use it when I want a wide zoom for landscapes. I don't really think it's any better than the Canon 16-35. I use my 14-24 occasionally, but not regularly.
For architectural, correcting perspective distortion in post is kind of a loser...IQ suffers and you flat-out lose a lot of pixels cropping back to a rectangular aspect. If it were me, I'd get a 5DII and Canon T/S lens. I'm a Nikon guy, but IMHO Canon has it all over Nikon in the tilt-shift department. Come to think of it, a T/S makes a terrific landscape lens - rise and fall is very handy, and you can change the direction of the swing on a Canons T/S without sending it to the manufacturer and coughing up money.
p.2 #5 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the very useful information. The filter issue with the 14-24 is a concern of mine. I would think that using a CPL and GND's with landscapes would be very common and important. As for the 5Dll, I really do not want to do that. I am happy with my 1dsmk2.
I will have to look into the 17-35 to find out more about that lens. I have also heard that the 17 T/S lens is good. However, I am a little concerned about it being too specialized and may not be used very often.
p.2 #6 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
A good friend shoots landscapes that often end up on calendars we know and love. He bought the D700 after decades of shooting large format but didn't have a great deal of money available to buy the lenses he KNOWS he needs to get his shot, the tilt-shift lens. Canon has an excellent selection of tilt-shift lenses that can often be found used on this board at excellent prices. Nikon recently released two new tilt-shift lenses as well, so you clearly have your choice of system with which you want to experiment. A 24mm lens should do an excellent job with either architecture or landscape when mounted on a full frame camera. Nikon's lenses would only be slightly more expensive than the 14-28 that is justly appreciated for its excellence. Of course, as Thom Hogan mentions, it is the most expensive lens that seldom makes its way to his camera. That says something as well.
Be grateful for the abundance of your riches. Have fun!
p.2 #7 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
I don't know how good the 16-35 Mark II version is, but my Nikon 14-24 is far, far superior to the 17-40 f/4 and the 16-35 f/2.8 Mark I. It is noticeably better, especially wide open. Since I occasionally shoot landscapes wide open, this makes the choice quite clear for me. Further, I've used wide angle lenses in other systems, and many of them also trounce the Canon UWA selection. I have not tried the 17mm TS/E.
There is no lens in the Canon system that I know of able to provide the performance and versatility of the 14-24. As for the CZ, it can't shoot at 14mm, and does not have AF. It allegedly has better center performance wide open, but the Nikon is it's equal or superior at f/4 and above, and also vignettes less.
Finally, I think your concern about the difference between 12.8MP and 16.7MP for landscape use is misplaced. The Nikon optic is good enough that it may obviate the relatively slight resolution advantage favoring the 1Ds II.
p.2 #8 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Lordarka,
Thanks for the reply. It would be nice to ascertain whether the 4MP difference between the two bodies is significant for landscapes. At this point, I do not know. However, your experience on the matter will be noted.
p.2 #9 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Hi Curtis,
Thanks. So, your vote appears to be for the Canon 17mm T/S lens. And yes, I do appreciate what I have, just trying to fill a perceived void in my focal length line-up.
p.2 #10 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
As for the Adapter the Fotodix is the same as the 16-9 net one the hubsand makes. if you look on his site his comes with a chip as well. But obviously its going to be fully manual focus
Is it really the same or at least, close to it? Timely delivery of hubsand (Mark) adapters is questionable, especially back then. Plus, his price is higher than that of Fotodiox. I went with the ultimate Nikon G - EOS adapter for a while but I gave up on that and I am considering giving up the Nikon system entirely but I will hang on to this lens to be used on my Canon body. Does anybody have some kind of input on this adapter, please? Thanks!
p.2 #11 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
J4644 wrote:
Lordarka,
Thanks for the reply. It would be nice to ascertain whether the 4MP difference between the two bodies is significant for landscapes. At this point, I do not know. However, your experience on the matter will be noted.
Thanks,
Jim
How large are you printing? My 12.8MP cameras deliver acceptable prints up to 20x30, though most people believe that 16x24 is the prudential limit for this resolution. I haven't pushed the files beyond that point. At 12.8MP, I do make every effort to capture exactly the landscape that I want in the frame, and avoid any sort of cropping in post that would result in the destruction of image data.
I would certainly prefer to have a higher resolution camera, but as I shoot Nikon now, my only high-resolution option is a $7000 D3x, which is more than I want to spend on a camera. Even so, I've enjoyed some success printing and publicly exhibiting 12.8 MP landscape prints.
Ultimately, I do believe that lenses are going to be more important to IQ than the marginal resolution advantage. The controversial Ken Rockwell did some tests of these lenses on each of their respective systems, and it was interesting to see that the 14-24 at f/2.8 retained about the same or slightly better center detail on a 12.8 MP D700 than a 16-35 f/2.8 L II on a 22.1 MP 5D Mark II. It was a pretty damning indictment of the 16-35's inferiority; a camera with nearly double the pixels of the D700 could not outresolve the Nikon using an UWA zoom designed for the Canon system.
I would use a Zeiss 21 before I would use a 16-35 II. However, I would choose a 14-24 over either, even though the Zeiss is better at f/2.8.
p.2 #12 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Lordarka,
Thanks for the very useful and practical information. The only time I would print larger than 20 X 30 is when I had a spectacular image. Then I would have to have some lab do it for me. I currently have an Epson 3800 and it has a width limitation of 17 inches. Thinking about it, I rarely have printed larger than the 17 inch width limitation of my Epson. So, I would say that a print that large would probably only be an issue with me less than 5% of the time.
I am leaning towards the 14-24. My concern is CPL's and GND's. I am primarily a sports shooter, but want to do more landscapes. From what I have read, those filters can be an issue with the Nikon, but not much of an issue with Canon.
As for the 24 MP DX3, yes, that would solve everything. However, it will probably be a few years before it comes down below $4,000 for me to look at it.
p.2 #13 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Jim,
Filters are an issue with the Nikon. An existing solution is the Cokin XL-100 Pro-holder that uses thumbscrews with rubberized tips to attach to the hood of the lens. A CP-L can be purchased with it, but the price is steep ($500 for the kit). The holder itself is about $120. Lee is also developing a product for using filters on the Nikon lens, but it has apparently been delayed.
However, I find that I rarely need to use them when shooting digital ultra wide. One problem with a CP-L on wide angle lenses is that I often get strange darkening effects across my skies. This was a very common problem I ran into with even the best CPLs on my 17-40 f/4.
As for GNDs, I prefer to handle dynamic range issues using bracketed exposures and manual blending in post, or differential development of a single RAW file followed by manual blending (I am not a fan of automated HDR effects). I've used G-ND's on my view camera, and they work well enough when I would prefer not to use another sheet of 4x5 film to bracket exposures with. But I find GNDs to be a pretty blunt instrument as compared to what is possible in post-processing, especially when the line between a dark ground and bright sky is jagged, uneven, or otherwise unusual.
p.2 #14 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Lordarka,
Thanks once again for the great practical information. I am going to google the Cokin holder when I get a chance. Apparently, I may not need to use the CPL or GND as much as I have been led to believe with ultra-wide angle lenses.
Let me ask you if you have had those strange darkening effects in your skies while using the 14-24 and a CPL?
p.2 #15 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
I haven't used a CP-L with the 14-24. The $500 Cokin solution is a little too costly for me, and I haven't had the best of luck with CPLs on my old Canon wides. The only filter I ever anticipate requiring for the 14-24 are standard ND filters, and I can just hold those in front of the lens until I either pick up the Cokin ring, or acquire the Lee solution.
p.2 #17 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
I rented a 14-24 f/2.8 and bought an adapter to try on my erstwhile 5D MK1. Terrific lens. That said, are you sure you want/need something that wide? I'd strongly recommend renting one and trying it out on your D3x before buying. Often for landscapes, wider isn't better and you may find that a 17mm or 24mm prime (TS-E of you're into architecture) might be better, especially given how easy it is to get good stitcihed images from TS-E lenses if you feel the need to go wider.
p.2 #18 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Hi Joe,
All good points. All I can say is that I am pretty sure I want one. I also would rather not stitch together images to go wider. However, I honestly have to say that I have never actually tried stitching anything. I have just read about some of the issues like overlapping, having to use having to use a tripod etc.
Lastly, I am having a hard time convincing myself that the 17 mm T/S lens that many are suggesting is versatile enough to use. It seems like it is a very specialized lens and may not get as much use as the 14-24.
p.2 #19 · Canon 16-35 f/2.8ll vs. Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
Nikon14-24 is not much better than 16-35 L II in small F like 8~11. http://kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/18mm-comparison.htm
especailly in D3 or D3s, if you want perfect effect of Nikon 14-24, you should use 5D2 , 1Ds III , the best choice is D3X.
