[genotypewriter]

I did a very detailed comparison of the latest 24mm f/1.4 lenses from Canon and Nikon.



[center][url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4698284415/"]Link to review

[/url][/center]



Aspects compared:

1. Long distance center IQ

2. Long distance corner IQ

3. Close distance center IQ

4. Close distance corner IQ

5. Front and rear bokeh differences w.r.t. center frame vs. corner frame

6. Bokeh highlight shapes

7. Vignetting at both close and infinity distances

8. Field of view changes (at close distances)



More details in the review page.



Enjoy!



GTW



PS: This is my first post here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Guest]

Thanks. Much appreciated.



Now, Canon only needs release a 14-24 f/2.8 lens of comparable optical quality to Nikon's classic lens, and that will lay down to rest some common internet myths. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[toni-a]

[quote name='thw' date='14 June 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1276515518' post='491']

Now, Canon only needs release a 14-24 f/2.8 lens of comparable optical quality to Nikon's classic lens, and that will lay down to rest some common internet myths. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]



not sure about that

a lens with a big protruding front elements isn't always a dream lens...

[genotypewriter]

Thanks for the replies guys!



[quote name='thw' date='14 June 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1276515518' post='491']

Now, Canon only needs release a 14-24 f/2.8 lens of comparable optical quality to Nikon's classic lens, and that will lay down to rest some common internet myths. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]



lol... lately I've come to realise how silly this wide-angle competition between Canon and Nikon [fans] is. IMO, anyone who calls themselves a demanding landscape photographer should either go 8x10 film or digital medium format instead of fooling around with tiny 35mm sensors and their CA-ridden wides. Splitting hairs over whether Canon or Nikon is better for wide-angles is a silly exercise.



That said (and I don't mean to sound biased)... Canon's TS-E 17L, TS-E 24L II and 24L II all surpass Nikon's 14-24 and Zeiss's 21 & 18 Distagons. The only hole is in the 14mm end. The easy solution to that is creating a hole in Nikon's line-up by going for a good sample of the Sigma 12-24 and shooting at 12mm <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />





[quote name='toni-a' date='14 June 2010 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1276516026' post='492']

not sure about that

a lens with a big protruding front elements isn't always a dream lens...

[/quote]



Nikon's front element problem is mainly because of its max aperture. I don't know who shoots landscapes at f/2.8 or has trouble focusing with a 14mm to need the f/2.8. Knowing Canon, I doubt they will make their 14-24 (if they make one) any slower than f/2.8, unfortunately.

[Sylvain]

Thanks Geno, nice comparison.



Is the front element shape really a function of the maximum aperture? Although designed for four thirds, pana & oly 7-14 f/4 lenses are similarly shaped. Same with sigma 8-16 & 12-24 lenses (wider of course but still).

If so, complaining about this shape seems like complaining about a FWD car having a four wheels transmission.



Greetings,

S.





[quote name='genotypewriter' date='14 June 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1276520529' post='495']

Thanks for the replies guys!







lol... lately I've come to realise how silly this wide-angle competition between Canon and Nikon [fans] is. IMO, anyone who calls themselves a demanding landscape photographer should either go 8x10 film or digital medium format instead of fooling around with tiny 35mm sensors and their CA-ridden wides. Splitting hairs over whether Canon or Nikon is better for wide-angles is a silly exercise.



That said (and I don't mean to sound biased)... Canon's TS-E 17L, TS-E 24L II and 24L II all surpass Nikon's 14-24 and Zeiss's 21 & 18 Distagons. The only hole is in the 14mm end. The easy solution to that is creating a hole in Nikon's line-up by going for a good sample of the Sigma 12-24 and shooting at 12mm <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />









Nikon's front element problem is mainly because of its max aperture. I don't know who shoots landscapes at f/2.8 or has trouble focusing with a 14mm to need the f/2.8. Knowing Canon, I doubt they will make their 14-24 (if they make one) any slower than f/2.8, unfortunately.

[/quote]

[wim]

Hi Sylvain,

[quote name='Sylvain' date='14 June 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1276540004' post='511']

Thanks Geno, nice comparison.



Is the front element shape really a function of the maximum aperture? Although designed for four thirds, pana & oly 7-14 f/4 lenses are similarly shaped. Same with sigma 8-16 & 12-24 lenses (wider of course but still).

If so, complaining about this shape seems like complaining about a FWD car having a four wheels transmission.



Greetings,

S.[/quote]

Yes, for optimal edge to edge behaviour, and minimum amount of vignetting, a large, bulging front lens is unavoidable. Of course the pana and oly lenses are designed for a much smaller sensor, therefore can be quite a bit smaller, and hence have less of a problem than a lens designed for a FF sensor. Add a very wide aperture to that for these UWAs, and th eonly outcome can be a huge bulging front element. Don't forget that the actual focal length is very small, the AoV very wide, and the front element far away from the actual aperture. That is really why such a huge front element is needed.



Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

[quote name='genotypewriter' date='14 June 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1276520529' post='495']

Thanks for the replies guys!



lol... lately I've come to realise how silly this wide-angle competition between Canon and Nikon [fans] is. IMO, anyone who calls themselves a demanding landscape photographer should either go 8x10 film or digital medium format instead of fooling around with tiny 35mm sensors and their CA-ridden wides. Splitting hairs over whether Canon or Nikon is better for wide-angles is a silly exercise.



That said (and I don't mean to sound biased)... Canon's TS-E 17L, TS-E 24L II and 24L II all surpass Nikon's 14-24 and Zeiss's 21 & 18 Distagons. [/quote]Based on my own tests and comparisons, I totally agree <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I owned a 14-24, with G-EOS adapter, and sold the lens after acquiring the TS-E 17. The 14-24 is no competition for the TS-E. Neither is the ZE with its huge field relevant vignetting, and I am not even talking about the 18 distagon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

The only hole is in the 14mm end. The easy solution to that is creating a hole in Nikon's line-up by going for a good sample of the Sigma 12-24 and shooting at 12mm <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

Nah, even cropping a 12 mm image to 14 mm, or even 18 mm, is not going to give you the same quality, not even close <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I got a 12-24, best of three, and when I saw the results in real life I ran back to the shop, and exchanged it for above mentioned Nikkor 14-24, even though it cost twice as much (Of course, than then got superceded by the TS-E 17 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />).



However, the 14L II is actually not bad at all for a fast 14 mm. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Nikon's front element problem is mainly because of its max aperture. I don't know who shoots landscapes at f/2.8 or has trouble focusing with a 14mm to need the f/2.8. Knowing Canon, I doubt they will make their 14-24 (if they make one) any slower than f/2.8, unfortunately.

Yep, also think so.



However, F/2.8 in an extreme UWA is great for low light shooting <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Sylvain' date='15 June 2010 - 04:26 AM' timestamp='1276540004' post='511']

Is the front element shape really a function of the maximum aperture? Although designed for four thirds, pana & oly 7-14 f/4 lenses are similarly shaped. Same with sigma 8-16 & 12-24 lenses (wider of course but still).

If so, complaining about this shape seems like complaining about a FWD car having a four wheels transmission.

[/quote]



Good point about the 7-14s, Sylvain. I was mainly referring to how the Sigma 12-24 goes down to 12mm without having a front element as large as the 14-24, because of its slower max f number. The shape of course has to be there for the FOV.



GTW

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='wim' date='15 June 2010 - 07:46 AM' timestamp='1276552014' post='521']

Based on my own tests and comparisons, I totally agree <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />. I owned a 14-24, with G-EOS adapter, and sold the lens after acquiring the TS-E 17. The 14-24 is no competition for the TS-E. Neither is the ZE with its huge field relevant vignetting, and I am not even talking about the 18 distagon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

Nah, even cropping a 12 mm image to 14 mm, or even 18 mm, is not going to give you the same quality, not even close <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I got a 12-24, best of three, and when I saw the results in real life I ran back to the shop, and exchanged it for above mentioned Nikkor 14-24, even though it cost twice as much (Of course, than then got superceded by the TS-E 17 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />).



However, the 14L II is actually not bad at all for a fast 14 mm. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]



Agree... the TS-E 17 is a gorgeous lens. It's a must have for UWA fans, T/S aside. The T/S is a good bonus too.



[quote name='wim' date='15 June 2010 - 07:46 AM' timestamp='1276552014' post='521']

However, F/2.8 in an extreme UWA is great for low light shooting <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

[/quote]



Sometimes I get too lazy to do a bulb exposure and try to get everything in 30s <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> But I think the main benefit of such fast apertures (combined with high ISOs) is allowing you to do exposure previews quicker, for very low light static scenes.