11-18-2010, 07:16 PM
Hi Serkan,
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1290080757' post='4245']
It might be correct that Canon has made some impressive wide angles, but it seems that these two are not the cases <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />... Despite the fact that comparison across the systems (+ comparison of primes and zooms regarding the IQ on the edges) is always dangerous, I have to say that they're both a tad softer than the 14-24mm (and 14mm Canon has a heavy CAs even at higher f-stops). [/quote]
Did you actually ever shoot with any of these? I've shot a Nikkor 14-24 on a 5D II with G-EOS adapter for about 4 months, before I had a TS-E 17L, and although the Nikkor is very good, it is not as good as the 17L, at least not based on the specimens I owned myself (still own 17L). I also shot the ZE 21, and took a few shots with the ZE 18.
Sorry to say, but IMO the 17L beats them all. It is sharper in the corners then any of the others. That's unshifted.
However, having said all that, it doesn't really matter. What does matter, IMO, is the way these lenses render, and how each individual, i.e., the photographer, likes the end results with these lenses. The Nikkor 14-24, ZE 21 and TS-E 17L are all in class by themselves, th eZE 18 is a little less, still very good however. Peopel tend to forget that anything scoring "good" in the MTF tests here, really is an excellent lens, and it is all up to the photographer to get the results. Sharpness is really only a minor part, even if it does help when printing large. The most important parts are vision, composition, and PP.
Too late! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1290080757' post='4245']
It might be correct that Canon has made some impressive wide angles, but it seems that these two are not the cases <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />... Despite the fact that comparison across the systems (+ comparison of primes and zooms regarding the IQ on the edges) is always dangerous, I have to say that they're both a tad softer than the 14-24mm (and 14mm Canon has a heavy CAs even at higher f-stops). [/quote]Did you actually ever shoot with any of these? I've shot a Nikkor 14-24 on a 5D II with G-EOS adapter for about 4 months, before I had a TS-E 17L, and although the Nikkor is very good, it is not as good as the 17L, at least not based on the specimens I owned myself (still own 17L). I also shot the ZE 21, and took a few shots with the ZE 18.
Sorry to say, but IMO the 17L beats them all. It is sharper in the corners then any of the others. That's unshifted.
However, having said all that, it doesn't really matter. What does matter, IMO, is the way these lenses render, and how each individual, i.e., the photographer, likes the end results with these lenses. The Nikkor 14-24, ZE 21 and TS-E 17L are all in class by themselves, th eZE 18 is a little less, still very good however. Peopel tend to forget that anything scoring "good" in the MTF tests here, really is an excellent lens, and it is all up to the photographer to get the results. Sharpness is really only a minor part, even if it does help when printing large. The most important parts are vision, composition, and PP.
Quote:Anyway, this is a "Pentax" thread and I don't want to spoil it...<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
Too late! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Quote:Kind regards,
Serkan
Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
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 ....
