Has anyone seen a comparison of these two wide angle monsters? I already have the zoom, but I'm curious to see how the two compare at 24mm for overall image quality/sharpness/distortion. From other reviews I've seen I fully expect the 24 f1.4 to beat the pants off of the 24-70, but how about the UWA zoom?
i find the 14-24 isn't particularly sharp at F/1.4.
if your going to spend the doe on a 24 1.4, i'd say you should be planning to shoot at 1.4 whole lot, if your going to bother stopping it down to or passed 2.8, than stick with the zoom. therefor you really can't compare the 2 lenses.
---XR--- wrote:
i find the 14-24 isn't particularly sharp at F/1.4.
if your going to spend the doe on a 24 1.4, i'd say you should be planning to shoot at 1.4 whole lot, if your going to bother stopping it down to or passed 2.8, than stick with the zoom. therefor you really can't compare the 2 lenses.
Uggghhh, why does someone have to do this every time a poster asks about a zoom vs. a prime He can compare the two lenses if he likes; to find differences between the two, and what would be 'better' for him - that's the freakin' point of comparing things! This whole obsession with 'apples-to-apples' is such BS. There's no reason in the Universe that I can't compare a Pontiac G8 to an Audi RS4.
Robb, I don't have the 24G, but I do have the 14-24; which, has very good distortion control at 24mm - noticeably better than my 24-70 at 24mm. For what it's worth, I bought the 14-24 and the 24-70 with a firm mindset that the 14-24 would be used a ton, and the 24-70 would fall by the wayside. As it turns out, the opposite is true. That said, I just can't let go of the 14-24 - no matter how little I use it - it's just too good.
Can 14-24 go 1.4 I did not know about that .......
---XR--- wrote:
i find the 14-24 isn't particularly sharp at F/1.4.
if your going to spend the doe on a 24 1.4, i'd say you should be planning to shoot at 1.4 whole lot, if your going to bother stopping it down to or passed 2.8, than stick with the zoom. therefor you really can't compare the 2 lenses.
I compared them a while ago, and the 24/1.4 is way better. Wide open they are pretty close though the 24/1.4 amazingly was slightly sharper. At f/2.8, the prime is much better, and interestingly even at f/8 it beats the zoom. Previously I thought at f/8 all lenses are rather the same, but not so, at least not in this case. At this small aperture, both lenses are obviously very sharp across the fame, but the 24/1.4 still looks much better, with more contrast and more vivid colors. The 14-24 looked downright flat in comparison, and as we know it is still a superb lens in it's own right. I have since sold my 14-24 since I rarely used it below 20mm, and now I would never use it above 20mm either (I also have the ZF 21/2.8).
for me, i'd rather spend the $1500 on a 14-24, have the functionality of a zoom, and use the other $600 towards a 2nd lens. $2100 is a bit pricey for a single lens for me. However, that f/1.4 sure is nice for weddings and nighttime
cheeba wrote:
This whole obsession with 'apples-to-apples' is such BS. There's no reason in the Universe that I can't compare a Pontiac G8 to an Audi RS4.
well my opinion is the opposite, if they aren't comparable lenses, why bother comparing them? these lens are far different because of the build and the aperture, i personally find no reason in the use bothering to compare a lens meant to be shot primarily at 1.4 with a zoom lens of it's farthest focal length shot at it's highest aperture of 2.8, there's no scientific way you can compare them for sharpness and IQ, distortion- etc. If they aren't similar, comparing a 28mm 1.4 and a 24mm 1.4 works, and a 17-35mm 2.8 and 14-24mm 2.8 works, the question in essence is assainine and has no real answer, if you want a generalization on if a lens is sharp or not than fine play that game, but if were talking pro glass i would expect decent knowledgeable replies. my 0.02 feel free to dispute friend.
I have both, and I like the 1.4 better for reasons stated, and it just renders the image a little nicer.
That said, I do like the 14-24 a lot, and is more versatile when you want something wider - something the 1.4 can't do. But the 1.4 does go wider (aperture) than 2.8... so if f/2.8 isn't adequate to you (since you already have the zoom), then you're not left with much of a choice. Of if you need that thin DOF... can't beat it.
Though I'd say that I generally agree that you can't really compare the two b/c they're so different, I'd say that the 24 1.4 is "better" in just about every way except for the fact that it doesn't zoom.
24 1.4 Pro's: smaller, lighter, faster, better rendering/look (this is subjective but to me the pics from the 24 1.4 are pretty damn amazing for some reason), takes filters, doesn't stick out with a massive piece of round glass like the 14-24.
24 1.4 Con's: doesn't get as wide as a 14-24 (obviously).
If you're debating between the two, get the 24 1.4 unless you have to go to 14-23.
A number of reviews were done of the 14-24mm f2.8 when it first was released and some include shots taken with this lens and with the Canon 14mm f2.8 and 24mm f1.4 lenses. The Nikon was substantially sharper than either of the two Canon primes which was no surprise as I owned and used both of these Canon lenses.
The 24mm f1.4 was a great lens when having to shoot with cameras limited to a real world ISO of 1250 (like the D200, 1D Mark II, etc.) or even ISO 640 with the D2x. Consider for a moment that at f1.4 with the 24mm lens and a subject distance of 8 feet the DOF is less than 3 feet and only half of that (21 inches) is going to be behind your point of focus.
For landscape photography it is surpassed by the 14-24, 17-35 and 16-35 lens in utility and for wedding or event photography at f1.2 to f2 the DOF will not be adequate. I used the Canon 24mm f1.4 on a 1D Mark III for wedding photography where it provided the FOV of a 30mm lens on a full frame camera and at f2 I could shoot at ISO 1600 more of the time instead of ISO 3200.
With the ISO 12,800 of the D3s or even the ISO 6400 capability of the D700 camera the need for a f1.4 wide angle prime is a bit of a mystery.
elkhornsun wrote:
A number of reviews were done of the 14-24mm f2.8 when it first was released and some include shots taken with this lens and with the Canon 14mm f2.8 and 24mm f1.4 lenses. The Nikon was substantially sharper than either of the two Canon primes which was no surprise as I owned and used both of these Canon lenses.
The 24mm f1.4 was a great lens when having to shoot with cameras limited to a real world ISO of 1250 (like the D200, 1D Mark II, etc.) or even ISO 640 with the D2x. Consider for a moment that at f1.4 with the 24mm lens and a subject distance of 8 feet the DOF is less than 3 feet and only half of that (21 inches) is going to be behind your point of focus.
For landscape photography it is surpassed by the 14-24, 17-35 and 16-35 lens in utility and for wedding or event photography at f1.2 to f2 the DOF will not be adequate. I used the Canon 24mm f1.4 on a 1D Mark III for wedding photography where it provided the FOV of a 30mm lens on a full frame camera and at f2 I could shoot at ISO 1600 more of the time instead of ISO 3200.
With the ISO 12,800 of the D3s or even the ISO 6400 capability of the D700 camera the need for a f1.4 wide angle prime is a bit of a mystery. ...Show more →
It is definitely not a mystery. For wedding shooting, 1.4-2.0 are great apertures for many applications where there is a controlled environment. Not only that, but a 1.4 wide angle prime is sharper at 2.0 than a 2.0 would be, by a large margin. That is another huge benefit to having that capability to shoot at 1.4, because then you also have the capability to shoot at 2.0 and be stopped down an entire stop.
elkhornsun wrote:
For landscape photography it is surpassed by the 14-24, 17-35 and 16-35 lens in utility and for wedding or event photography at f1.2 to f2 the DOF will not be adequate.
For you, that bit about weddings and events might be true, but not necessarily for the majority of other shooters. I know plenty of shooters who shoot quite happily at f/1.2 & f/1.4 at a wedding all day long. It's not about DOF being adequate, clients don't think in terms of 'DOF' they see 'look' or talk about 'dreamy' or 'soft' or 'gentle'.
There are shooters out there doing multi-row pano's of couples do get narrower DOF than is possible with a f/1.2 lens.
He can compare the two lenses if he likes; to find differences between the two, and what would be 'better' for him - that's the freakin' point of comparing things! This whole obsession with 'apples-to-apples' is such BS. There's no reason in the Universe that I can't compare a Pontiac G8 to an Audi RS4.