07-22-2010, 12:38 PM
Hi Yakim,
I did see your posts over at Fred Miranda <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I even replied to a few <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I'd really suggest, if you are planning on buying a 14-24 with G-EOS adapter, to continue saving a little more, and get a TS-E 17, honestly. If you have the funds to get a 14-24, plus G-EOS adapter, you're only an 85 F/1.8 away from the TS-E 17 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
You do need to get a better one than the one you tested from Canon Israel, however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
I did own a Nikkor 14-24 with G-EOS adapter. My TS-E 17 was better than the Nikkor at any FL, by a small margin, but noticeably so in the corners. The TS-E 17 is also smaller, and if you really need wider, you can always resort to stitching two shifted shots, with an even wider FoV than the Nikkor is capable of. Also, it is much less flare prone than the Nikkor, although with my type of shooting I really saw it happening only once. The Nikkor is less contrasty, which at first look may seem to give it the edge, but in reality it records less "depth" that way. What I mean to say is that with the TS-E the shadows are darker than with the Nikkor. The really nice thing with the TS-E 17 is that it actually gives a nice 3D feel in many of the shots, despite it being an UWA. That is certainly much less the case with the Nikkor.
Kind regards, Wim
I did see your posts over at Fred Miranda <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I even replied to a few <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I'd really suggest, if you are planning on buying a 14-24 with G-EOS adapter, to continue saving a little more, and get a TS-E 17, honestly. If you have the funds to get a 14-24, plus G-EOS adapter, you're only an 85 F/1.8 away from the TS-E 17 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.You do need to get a better one than the one you tested from Canon Israel, however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.I did own a Nikkor 14-24 with G-EOS adapter. My TS-E 17 was better than the Nikkor at any FL, by a small margin, but noticeably so in the corners. The TS-E 17 is also smaller, and if you really need wider, you can always resort to stitching two shifted shots, with an even wider FoV than the Nikkor is capable of. Also, it is much less flare prone than the Nikkor, although with my type of shooting I really saw it happening only once. The Nikkor is less contrasty, which at first look may seem to give it the edge, but in reality it records less "depth" that way. What I mean to say is that with the TS-E the shadows are darker than with the Nikkor. The really nice thing with the TS-E 17 is that it actually gives a nice 3D feel in many of the shots, despite it being an UWA. That is certainly much less the case with the Nikkor.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....