Canon Ultrawide Primes vs. Nikon 14-24mm 2.8

I’ve been waiting for my Novoflex adapter to mount a Nikon 14 – 24mm f/2.8 (which I haven’t yet purchased) on my Canon 5D Mark II. Since the Nikon came out, I’ve read nothing but glowing reviews about the “most important ultrawide zoom in the history of humanity” or something (almost) to that effect. In every review I’ve read, the reviewer (again almost quoting, if not literally) says that the Nikon “Blows away every prime in the canon line-up in its focal range, including the 14mm I/II, the 24mmL I/II.” And the evidence they provide is pretty compelling:

1. http://www.16-9.net …ikon1424_canon1​4l2_a.html
2. http://www.16-9.net …4mm_1/nikon14_2​4mm_a.html
3. http://www.slrgear.com …t.php/product/1​122/cat/13
4. http://www.slrgear.com …t.php/product/1​229/cat/10
5. http://www.slrgear.com …t.php/product/1​115/cat/10

Now that my adapter has been delivered, this website, which I generally find to be more consistent with my own findings than most, does a series of comparisons:

1. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0
2. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=4
3. http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=0&API=2

Looking that those comparisons, the Nikon appears to be inferior at every aperture to the 14L II and the 24L II (and the canon 24mm TS-E as well). Why the difference? Variation in Nikon’s quality? A bad test? Could it be the resolution of the Nikon camera used that’s having this impact?

Does anyone have an opinion on the corner-to-corner IQ of the Nikon relative to the two Canon primes (and also relative to the Zeiss 18mm and the 17-TS-E)? I’ve been generally impressed with the 14mmL II (I don’t own the 24mmL II), but it suffers noticeably by comparison to the corner-to-corner IQ of my 21mm Zeiss and 24mm TS-E. I’m interested in a little better corner-to-corner IQ in the 14mm -18mm range, and I’m considering the Nikon 14-24mm, the Zeiss 18mm and the Canon 17mm TS-E. Any thoughts?

I would be using this as a landscape lens that I would generally shoot from f/5.6 to f/11, but I occasionally shoot faster or slower by a stop or two. Manual focus is fine with me. Thanks for any thoughts on my ramblings.

Nikon wins. But I admit to owning one and then selling it. Big and heavy, no filters. Adapter is kinda clumsy. Given the money now, I'd go for the new Canon 17 and 24 T/S.

Too bad this didn't turn into a thread... I want to know more about this as well...

After owning three copies of 14-24mm, I feel this lens is overhyped. Canon primes are just better.

jffielde wrote in post #11462831
Since the Nikon came out, I’ve read nothing but glowing reviews about the “most important ultrawide zoom in the history of humanity” or something (almost) to that effect. In every review I’ve read, the reviewer (again almost quoting, if not literally) says that the Nikon “Blows away every prime in the canon line-up in its focal range, including the 14mm I/II, the 24mmL I/II.”

I probably read the same reviews as you. But how many 14-24mm f/2.8 reviews have been written since the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 came out? I suggest seriously giving the Samyang some thought, since it sounds right up your alley. The Novoflex won't even be wasted if it gives you AF confirm, which the Samyang doesn't offer natively (it has zero communication with the camera).

Below is my brief review of it when I first got it. Since then I've gone through two other Samyangs, but the third was the charm and I've been beaming from ear to ear ever since. I honestly think it gives the TS-E 24mm II some stiff competition (slightly better in some ways, slightly worse in others). $389.95 shipped.

BTW, the gear list in my signature has links to all the photos I've posted on Flickr with this lens.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …ornsarebitter/4​820658338/

I prefer the Canon 14mmL II to the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 after using both for a couple of weeks (I bought and adapted the Nikon, but sold it after it didn't prove to be superior to my Canon 14mmL II, Zeiss 21, 24mm T-SE combo). The almost outlandish praise of the Nikon is a bit of a mystery to me. It's just a very big, good UWA zoom -- but nothing miraculous.

That Samyang is easily the best value of the bunch.

I am impressed / amazed that the hype around this lens almost single-handedly created an "adapter" market for the thing. I think quite a few adapted the lens, but very few of us/them seem to have kept it.

jffielde wrote in post #11858656
I easily prefer the Canon 14mmL II to the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 after using both for a couple of weeks (I bought and adapted the Nikon, but sold it after it didn't prove to be superior in any way to my Canon 14mmL II and Zeiss 21 combo). The almost outlandish praise of the Nikon is a mystery to me. It's just a very big, good UWA zoom -- nothing more.

That Samyang is easily the best value of the bunch.

I am impressed / amazed that the hype around this lens almost single-handedly created an "adapter" market for the thing. I think quite a few adapted the lens, but very few of them seem to have kept it. It just doesn't take much shooting to see there's nothing special.

do you have sample images of the two? any chance you could have gotten a bad copy of the 14-24?

I used my friends 14-24G on D700 and compared to my 14L II on SRAW mode

Besides the D700 (or Nikon's processing) in handling CA, the two are pretty much the same. If anything I'd give the edge in centre sharpness to the 14L II

Where the Nikon's drawcard is is the fact that it has 15-24mm

But optically, I think it's a case of "the grass is greener" for us Canon users. Both are for most intents and purposes equal in IQ (which actually is a nod to the Nikon since it is a zoom)

I didn't keep comparison photos. While it is certainly possible I got a bad copy, I think they are rare with such good glass from any major manufacturer. I think such defects are more often "driver-error," and both sources of error are possible here -- particularly with with an adapted lens.

In this case, I expected better IQ than the Canon primes in that focal range (I have the 14mm II, 24mm TS-E and Zeiss 21mm), and I was disappointed. It is a significant feat for a zoom to be comparable to good primes (just as is the case with the Canon 70-200 II), but the Nikon was hyped well beyond comparability to Canon's lenses. The three lenses listed above were all at least the equals of the Nikon for my landscaping purposes.

I also compared the Nikon to the 16-35mmII and the 17-40mm, and the Nikon was noticable better. I've never had particularly high regard for the two wide canon zooms, and I have found the 17-40mm to be fully equal to the 16-35mmII for landscaping. As a result, I've sold / returned both the Nikon and the 16-35mmII and kept the smaller, cheaper 17-40mm, which is growing on me quite a bit.

I've been doing a lot of recent research and I'm starting to be of the opinion that there may be some copy to copy variation with the Nikon 14-24. The samples I've seen and the comparisons (and reviews) are inconsistent, as are the personal experiences here.

Edit: it stands to reason (in my head anyway) that any product with more moving parts is likely to exhibit more variation. Therefore, as a rule of thumb, I would expect zooms to be somewhat more inconsistent across the board than primes.