canon 14mm v nikon 14-24mm

I would be willing to give the Canon 14 a mulligan on that test. It doesn't look like a happy copy. Regardless - even outside of the comparison, the Nikon looks like a nice performing lens. It would be nice if Canon redid the 16-35 down to a 14-xx L class fast zoom. I would really love a full frame compatible Canon L class lens in that range.

Ok, I like new 3d , only questions i have why all real life pics from Nikon dont look good as Canon ?

Any more OT discussion, of any kind and this thread will be locked, at a minimum. We've taken names. Personal attacks are never appropriate, regardless of the topic and regardless of your views.

Thank you Mark, for bringing this back to the lenses.

rbbblues wrote in post #4543498
...just ordered my 14 2.8 II, today, after hearing so many praises from users.......what is the real issue here...???....

No issues. It is a great lens. See my previous post with samples in the other strangely similar thread.

Maybe the Nikon lens is great, but we need to see more reviews before that becomes fact. The 16:9 review is a total sham. My 14mm II looks nothing like the sample in that review. Look at my previous posts, I have been saying what a great innovation the Nikon D3 is, and that I do not believe in brand loyalty. Right now Nikon clearly has the most innovative cameras, but I do not think they have the most innovative lenses, yet. I think they are on a sly Internet marketing hunt to go for Canon's jugular!

This reminds me of a few years ago when I worked for a large software company. At that time they jumped into the console gaming industry and one day announced internally that they had "brought on board" a bunch of gaming enthusiast review sites to help hype the launch of the new console and games. Later I found out that many so called reviews of games and hardware are actually initiated by 3rd party marketing agencies who send free games, consoles, accessories to these so called legitimate review sites, who in turn are thankful for the "gifts" and totally incapable of producing honest and objective reviews of the products.

The 14mm L II is a great piece of glass. I have proof. Just wait for more reviews before you judge.

OK, as someone who has all the lenses in question (14MkII, 16-35II, 14-24f2.8Nikon) I've got to say 1) the single review in question seems to have a bad 14 f2.8 - its a better lens than that. 2) the Nikon 14-24 may be the best wide zoom ever made. I love my 16-35 MkII but the Nikon is clearly sharper in edges and corners AND 2 mm wider.
Both the 14 f2.8 and 14-24 f2.8 are better than any tool available to me 3 months ago, which is great!

Tom W wrote in post #4543949
It will be interesting if that Nikon G -to- Canon adaptor that someone on FM is developing comes to fruition. A 14-24 mm zoom on a 5D would present quite a nice setup.

On the other hand, despite the good performance of my 16-35 II, I don't really use that lens as often as I might have expected. I've found that 24 mm (FF) is a respectable width in most situations. I would have to think very hard about spending a boatload of money to gain 2 mm of seldom-used width.

I recently posted the differences between 12mm and 14mm on a full frame camera. It's perhaps a few inches from side to side. Completely irrelevant in my opinion. I therefore agree with you completely.

mark

Ya I agaree, one of the reasons I sold my sigma 12-24mm and upgraded to the Canon 14mm L II was that whenever I used that lens I seem to have shot at 14 to 17mm anyway. The other reason was that the Sigma lens was a bit washed out and failed in landscape situations that I value most.

My 24-105mm L picks up the slack above 14mm, despite the fact it sucks big time with Bokeh. Something really perfect with 24-35mm on FF Canons

Competition is good for everyone

MDJAK wrote in post #4545861
I recently posted the differences between 12mm and 14mm on a full frame camera. It's perhaps a few inches from side to side. Completely irrelevant in my opinion. I therefore agree with you completely.

mark

I recall seeing that post.
Plus, I have the fisheye if I really want w-i-d-e. And de-fished in software, it's still around the equivalent of about a 12-13 mm rectilinear lens.

Jman13 wrote in post #4539697
Canon was the top dog for a while, and Nikon has come storming back to take a lead in a lot of areas.

Actually, my recollection is that Nikon was THE top dog in 35mm stuff in the 60s and 70s. Canon in those days, was the mangy dog, sniffing crumbs off the floor (well, maybe not THAT bad) while Nikon sat at the head of the banquet table.

I quit photography in the early 1980s and have resurfaced to find Canon on top and Nikon in 2nd place. I don't know what happened in those years, or how fast the swap was, but I suspect it had something to do with the rise of digital and Canon's better AF performance which drove better sales to sports and PJ photographers, but that's just a guess.

I think it comes down to lenses. If Nikon can produce a line of lenses that are more desirable than Canon's lenses, even if they cost a bit more, we may see a shift from Canon to Nikon. But it will take some time. Folks aren't about to sell off thousands of dollars worth of Canon glass and invest thousands more into Nikon glass just so they can have the latest D3xx body. Not unless the body is clearly better and remains so for a relatively long time.

The other way to take the market is for new buyers to choose Nikon over Canon. Once they pick a camera, the lens purchases that follow will lock them in. This path too will take a while.

Either way, I see the shift from Canon to Nikon as a slow process. If Nikon ever does gain the upper hand, the shift back to Canon will be another slow process.

In the mean time it will be fun to read the posts by the amateurs who say "Nikon Sucks" or "Canon Sucks".

- Keith -

A shot a brick wall with my 14L II on my way to work to perform a quick check of corner sharpness at f/2.8...

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=4547080&po​stcount=29

Jon wrote in post #4545681
Any more OT discussion, of any kind and this thread will be locked, at a minimum. We've taken names. Personal attacks are never appropriate, regardless of the topic and regardless of your views.

Thank you Mark, for bringing this back to the lenses.

Uh oh. What did I miss?

Lord_Malone wrote in post #4547093
A shot a brick wall with my 14L II on my way to work to perform a quick check of corner sharpness at f/2.8...

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=4547080&po​stcount=29

Honestly, bottom corners look like they are going a little soft. 95% of the time, this wouldn't be critical. I had a 28 f1.8 that was doing this and it really only hurt me when I was shooting some shots for s symphony and then the corner softness showed up in peoples legs and feet, and what ever else that was contrastie down there. Not sure the Nikon would do better or not..... It's not like it is really bad at all. Again, most of the time... wouldn't even notice.

ed rader wrote in post #4542844
expense would be one reason. also because most photographers can get on fine without having the best 14mm lens.

ed rader

Oh, Edward. Why dost thou despise thy ultra wide so?

Croasdail wrote in post #4547884
Honestly, bottom corners look like they are going a little soft. 95% of the time, this wouldn't be critical. I had a 28 f1.8 that was doing this and it really only hurt me when I was shooting some shots for s symphony and then the corner softness showed up in peoples legs and feet, and what ever else that was contrastie down there. Not sure the Nikon would do better or not..... It's not like it is really bad at all. Again, most of the time... wouldn't even notice.

Noted. It was a quick hand held shot as I was passing by, so I don't think an even plane of focus was achieved. I'll try it on a tripod next time and reveal the truth.