[playlens]

I am still waiting for a full frame review on the Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G lens. Any idea when will this be... Thanks.

[Klaus]

It's not planned in the near future.

[wim]

In the mean time, and I do think the person who reviewed it might well be Geno here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />, there is always this:



[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4698284415/"]http://www.flickr.co...ter/4698284415/[/url]



Kind regards, Wim

[nosingchum]

[quote name='wim' date='21 June 2010 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1277127709' post='640']

In the mean time, and I do think the person who reviewed it might well be Geno here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />, there is always this:



[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4698284415/"]http://www.flickr.co...ter/4698284415/[/url]



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]



Lloyd Chambers reviewed both the Nikon 24G and the Canon 24LII (http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/index.html) separately. His site is a paid subscription; however, he does a very competent job of comparing the 24G with the rest of the Nikon lens lineup. Comparisons with the Canon 24LII show a different story than the link you gave above, with the edge going to the Nikon, esp. border and vignetting performance.



cheers,

Simon

[Brightcolours]

Of course, EVERY review from Lloyd Chambers shows the edge going to Nikon. No idea why people take him as serious as they do. A bit tiresome, the biased stuff from Lloyd. But to everyone his own, right?



[quote name='SimonC' date='21 June 2010 - 05:52 PM' timestamp='1277139168' post='641']

Lloyd Chambers reviewed both the Nikon 24G and the Canon 24LII (http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/index.html) separately. His site is a paid subscription; however, he does a very competent job of comparing the 24G with the rest of the Nikon lens lineup. Comparisons with the Canon 24LII show a different story than the link you gave above, with the edge going to the Nikon, esp. border and vignetting performance.



cheers,

Simon

[/quote]

[Brightcolours]

An informative "review" of the Nikon 24mm f1.4, compared to the Sigma 24mm and 28mm f1.8.



http://joshuaarcher.posterous.com/nikon-24mm-f14-review-versus-sigma-24mm-f18-l-0



Another "review", comparing it more or less to the 24mm f1.8 from Sigma.

http://www.enduserblog.com/2010/04/review-nikon-24mm-f14.html



In short, it is a very good lens, just like the Canon EF 24mm f1.4 L USM II.

[nosingchum]

[quote name='Brightcolours' date='21 June 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1277151642' post='642']

Of course, EVERY review from Lloyd Chambers shows the edge going to Nikon. No idea why people take him as serious as they do. A bit tiresome, the biased stuff from Lloyd. But to everyone his own, right?

[/quote]



If you read his review of the 24G, he devotes a significant pages towards documenting the AF problems the lens has - so much so you'd question why he'd even continue shooting with the lens after. So, he's hardly biased towards Nikon. If anything, he seems to prefer his Zeiss lenses over Nikon or Canon. Viewers can draw their own conclusions looking at the crops.



Simon

[Guest]

[quote name='SimonC' date='21 June 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1277159486' post='644']

If you read his review of the 24G, he devotes a significant pages towards documenting the AF problems the lens has - so much so you'd question why he'd even continue shooting with the lens after. So, he's hardly biased towards Nikon. If anything, he seems to prefer his Zeiss lenses over Nikon or Canon. Viewers can draw their own conclusions looking at the crops.



Simon

[/quote]



I find Lloyd Chambers reviews to be sort of odd. There is information in there, but you have to read very carefully because of what does seem like a strange set of biases. He certainly likes Zeiss lenses, so much you would think he was their agency. Even the 25 2.8 is a lens he raves about. Now, he doesn't as far as I know tell us anything untrue -- he mentions the curvature of field issue in his reviews -- but somehow when a Zeiss lens has curvature of field it's a feature which has creative potential which can make the photographer slip up if they don't take careful note, but when a canon lens has curvature of field it's shocking.



After Zeiss, there is a pretty clear emotional preference for Nikon over Canon. When a Canon lens does well, he can almost sound annoyed. (actually given that he uses mainly Nikon bodies, but shoots Canon when he thinks the lens is better, he's right to be privately annoyed - it means he will be switching bodies!). And he searches for faults. In his review of the 24 i.4LII for example, he goes on about the 'bizzare' donut effect in which there are concentric rings of unsharpness. Now he's not wrong about this. One of the effects some modern correction techniques is that rather than being sharpest centrally, and then trailing off the edge of the image circle, there is a ring effect. But it's not as though there is a ring of unsharpness; just a different pattern of variable sharpness than on traditional designs (and this phenomenon is increasingly common on modern fast lenses, and results in all areas being sharper than on older designs). Again, this is described as a bizzarre outrage. Similarly his review of the latest canon 70-200IS which described the fact that the lens is diffraction limited from f8 as being a *bad* thing.



In contrast is the review of the (excellent) Nikon 24mm 1.4. He indeed found the autofocus to be almost useless - there appears to be a problem here I'm sure Nikon will fix. But here his tone is remarkably forgiving. Now maybe that's fair enough. Presumably Nikon will fix it and you could get your lens looked at, and it seems to be a very good lens otherwise at least in the same league as the Canon. But I just know how he could have treated a Canon lens that behaved that way! - Much more harshly.



So there is information to be had, just so long as we remember that Zeiss >> Nikon >> Canon in the Chambers hierarchy, and ignore the non-factual content of the reviews (which does rather undermine the point of experiential reiviews)

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='wim' date='21 June 2010 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1277127709' post='640']

In the mean time, and I do think the person who reviewed it might well be Geno here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />, there is always this:



[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4698284415/"]http://www.flickr.co...ter/4698284415/[/url]



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]



Yes... the most notorious... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='SimonC' date='22 June 2010 - 02:52 AM' timestamp='1277139168' post='641']

Lloyd Chambers reviewed both the Nikon 24G and the Canon 24LII (http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/index.html) separately. His site is a paid subscription; however, he does a very competent job of comparing the 24G with the rest of the Nikon lens lineup. Comparisons with the Canon 24LII show a different story than the link you gave above, with the edge going to the Nikon, esp. border and vignetting performance.

[/quote]



There are always things to take and not to take from any review. Guys like Lloyd Chambers and Ken Rockwell are fairly heavy on opinion before objectiveness and technicality. For example, see how much fluff they write compared to the actual technical bits and results they show.



In the sorts of tests I do, I clearly show aspects that I'm comparing/measuring and emphasize on demonstrating the observations that were made so that the reader can make their own judgments. Descriptions I give are about how the tests were conducted more than personal opinion. After that, any opinions I give on what's shown is only good as anyone else's.



Plus I challenge Chambers, Rockwell or any experts to challenge me on the technicality of my tests or to repeat the tests I did and produce different results, if they can <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />