HERESEY!

I don't know if I dare post this question here, but I am going to anyway!
I am currently wanting a better wide angle lens, I like my 17-40 but am looking for something a bit sharper with less distortion. I have been reading very good things about the Nikon (there I said it!) 14-24 and hear that there are a number of people putting them on Canons with excellent results. There is an adapter available that allows aperture adjustment for this combination.
Has anyone here tried this lens, and were the results wort it?
The fact that everything is manual is irrelevant to me as landscapes don't run away. I am currently playing with a Contax 25mm F2.8 Distagn T and find it to be a very simple lens to use as, at this focal length everything is at infinity focus and I don't need to change the F stop much as its always used off a tripod.

If this were the middle ages, you'd be burned at the stake.

The Nikon 14-24 is a good one, according to what I've read. Ken Rockwell loved it "The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is the sharpest 14mm and 18mm lens I've ever used, by far." With a glowing recommendation from Ken Rockwell, I don't know what else you need.

rick_reno wrote in post #13539836
If this were the middle ages, you'd be burned at the stake.

The Nikon 14-24 is a good one, according to what I've read. Ken Rockwell loved it "The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is the sharpest 14mm and 18mm lens I've ever used, by far." With a glowing recommendation from Ken Rockwell, I don't know what else you need.

You are putting me off this lens!

I think Ken changed his opinion on that lens, he originally thought it was a new Zeiss at a new focal length for a change. Once he saw that it was a Nikon he called it "rubbish" i believe.

Nope,I think it's still number 1 in Ken's eye. Here's a link to his review of it and a bunch of other lenses.

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm

Despite what KR thinks of it, it does seem to be a good lens.

Ian Plant is a photographer whose opinion I do respect, and in presentations I've seen he has had very good things to say about this lens when used on Canon bodies. The last presentation I saw was about http://www.ianplant.co​m …red-gallery-patagonia.htm and the Nikon lens was mentioned several times.

I dun see why we judge the lens based on Kenrockwell review. However if talking on his review:

CENTER:

Nikon is the worst.

18mm-comparison.htm

rick_reno wrote in post #13539962
Nope,I think it's still number 1 in Ken's eye. Here's a link to his review of it and a bunch of other lenses.

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm

I was just being facetious since Ken seems slightly biased in most of his reviews. And taking a shot at zeiss for not making any real UWA lenses.

This is one of the best that you can buy but not the best, and yes, I said it. There are probably only two other zooms that can beat this out (can't remember for the life of me which but I'm sure it's some Holy Grail ones).

At first I say the title of this thread and thought it was about chocolate until I clicked it and was disappointed I saw no pictures of chocolate treats.lol

On topic, I felt the same way about the 17-40 and got rid of it. I also have been thinking about getting on the Nikon Tip since Ken says so many things about how Nikon has such amazing glass.

What's wrong with the 17-40? Isn't that just a gearhead mentality at this point? According to this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2 the Canon has less distortion than Nikon's 14-24 but it's also not as sharp. You just have to compromise and pick the biggest selling point for you.

EDIT: Nikon 24-70mm has less distortion, not as sharp and is expensive. Tokina 11-16mm is the same deal except that it's cheaper and shorter FL. A plus to the Tokina is that it's constant aperture. You can't have it all with one lens.

rick_reno wrote in post #13539836
If this were the middle ages, you'd be burned at the stake.

The Nikon 14-24 is a good one, according to what I've read. Ken Rockwell loved it "The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is the sharpest 14mm and 18mm lens I've ever used, by far." With a glowing recommendation from Ken Rockwell, I don't know what else you need.

You used the name Ken Rockwell twice, now thats

There appears to be many who use and like the Nikon 14 24.. on there Canon.

I'm not sure, but I suspect you have to manual focus it.. Is that correct?

I just recently purchased the Nikon 14-24 and an adapter to use on my Canon 5D MkII. Yes, you have to manually focus and use stop-down metering. The results, corner sharpness at 14mm and 2.8 that is better than my 16-35 at f/11! That's hard for me to say being a loyal Canonite. Here is my brief review:
https://photography-on-the.net …20598&highlight​=Dark+side

I find myself repeating this a lot... Take a look at the Tokina 16-28 f2.8. It is absolutly insane!