Canon 14mm f/2.8L vs Nikon 14-24

I know the new canon 14mm f/2.8L II is supposed to be an excellent lens but I've also heard the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is a very high quality zoom. The canon is $200 more at $2200 than the Nikon yet it's a prime and not any faster. Any chance Canon is working on a competitive zoom? Is the canon much better at 14mm FL than the Nikon?

I have the Mk I version of the Canon and using it a lot now but gave some thought to upgrading and wondered if there was a zoom in the future.

Looks to me like the canon is better at 2.8, less distortion lower ca and sharper corners.

By f4 the 14-24 has caught up apart from the distortion.

I used the EF 14mm f/2.8 L II for a little while with my Rebel XTi and found it to be an excellent lens. Low distortion and nicely sharp. It focuses very close too. I don't know much about the Nikon.

Canon has made no announcements about an ultrawide EF zoom so there is no way to know if they are working on it.

There is a 14-24L rumour but there was a 100-400mkII rumour 6 years ago also...

How about the Zeiss 15/2.8?

I'd love one of those but would have to dremel off the lens hood..

I have both...I like both. In general the Nikon is better, but there are aspects about the Canon I like better, including color rendition and superior distortion control. I need to pick one and sell the other, though. I actually bought the Nikon for the D800, but due to rethinking my gear strategy, I have sold the D800 and now need to sell my Nikon lenses 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. But, your note is a good reminder that shooting the 14-24mm on a Canon would work great. But just really need that semi-expensive adapter for the best setup on a Canon ( http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/ ).

1Tanker wrote in post #14646805
How about the Zeiss 15/2.8?

Ok, but at $3000 is it really better that much better than the Canon 14mm f2.8L II?

Ive seen a few posts here of people who use the Nikon 14-24 on a Canon body, can't remember which adapter they were using. I've used the 14-24 on a D3s and D800, if I pick up a Nikon body it'll be my first lens.

rick_reno wrote in post #14646946
Ive seen a few posts here of people who use the Nikon 14-24 on a Canon body, can't remember which adapter they were using. I've used the 14-24 on a D3s and D800, if I pick up a Nikon body it'll be my first lens.

The 16-9.net adapter I referenced above is ideal beacuse it does two critical tasks: has an aperture lever for dialing in the aperture, and is chipped for AF focus alert and other lens info. If ther is an equal or better option for less cost I'd love to learn about it.

swldstn wrote in post #14646928
Ok, but at $3000 is it really better that much better than the Canon 14mm f2.8L II?

I think so...it's way better from all I've seen. Tack sharp to the extreme corners, controled flares, at least as distortion-corrected, sharper overall, and so on. If I were making a fresh 14mm decision today and didn't already have the Canon or Nikon, it would be a no-brainer decision for me, although it is admittedly very pricey.

And you have to dremmel it.. I still dont know what CZ were thinking on that point.

Another impressive consideration is the 17mm TS-E. With it you can do shifted panos (which merge seamlessly) and since they're planar-projected, it essentially makes the 17mm function like a much wider-angle lens. Kind of a contrived, yet very useful zoom without actually being a zoom. There's a lot of added usefulness to a tilt-shift, so that should be a strong consideration as well. Dogone, but I am a serious wide-angle junky, I now have that one too!

The 24tse on full frame shifted landscape mode is about 14mm, the 17mm is more like 10mm.

The extreme sides are relatively poor though but its not too bad. All depends on if you need it in 1 frame or not.

RobDickinson wrote in post #14647007
And you have to dremmel it.. I still dont know what CZ were thinking on that point.

I shoot multi-exposures by default, so I don't value my GNDs like I used to. Exposure-blending generally offers better overal exposure-management for me (unless the wind is really blowing that foliage around, which make exposure blending a nightmare).