[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1303315103' post='7788']
Hello Wim,
So what about the Nikon 14mm? It is not small or light. [/quote]
And not all that good either. Normal UWA flaws - edges and corners fall of rapidly, and a fair amount of vignetting.
Quote:Or the Samyang 14mm, which just got a brilliant review in Chasseur d'Images! 389€ of excellence, but for the AF, but I guess it's hyperfocal at f11.
I don't believe in hyperfocal, especially not with digital, where you have a lot less leeway. Focus there where the point of focus from a spectator view point is, for optimal sharpness at teh main point of interest.... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Quote:And anyways, landscapes and buildings tend to not move so fast. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Quote:You say that you have switched to the 17mm yourself <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> ??
That's a whiel ago already, a year and a half, and I sold the 14-24 probably about a year ago.
Quote:I know the 14-24 is an outstanding lens, maybe best in class, bar none, but it is so big and heavy!
There are actually a few lenses in this class. For my own use, the TS-E 17 is the best, actually <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Quote: I guess the fact the 14mm costs just as much as the zoom is a factor to reckon with if you choose Nikon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> ,
No actually <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />. I chose Canon because of ergonomics, my weird eyes, and a bunch of specialist lenses I knew I wanted to obtain for my arsenal <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Quote:but the Samyang has to be an interesting alternative!! Check the results of the test with DXO in the May issue of Chasseur d'Images.
Well, I would think twice with a test by DxO. Some of their stuff is controversial at least.
I'd like to see real proper user tests again, somewhere <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Hopefully, one day, maybe I get around to these things myself again - long time since I last did one, written up that is.
Kindest 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 ....
I'd start with the Samyang 14/2.8. Lighter and cheaper than the 14-24 and with the same IQ. And while I love AF, I could do without it in an UWA, especially when I save so much money and grams.
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1303315103' post='7788']
Hello Wim,
So what about the Nikon 14mm? It is not small or light. Or the Samyang 14mm, which just got a brilliant review in Chasseur d'Images! 389€ of excellence, but for the AF, but I guess it's hyperfocal at f11. And anyways, landscapes and buildings tend to not move so fast. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> You say that you have switched to the 17mm yourself <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> ?? I know the 14-24 is an outstanding lens, maybe best in class, bar none, but it is so big and heavy! I guess the fact the 14mm costs just as much as the zoom is a factor to reckon with if you choose Nikon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> , but the Samyang has to be an interesting alternative!! Check the results of the test with DXO in the May issue of Chasseur d'Images.
[/quote]
I also saw good review on the Samyang 14mm here with the 5D mark II. But the distortion is serious and hard to correct.
Frank
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1303307057' post='7783']
The new sigma 12-24 MK II
- Promissing optics - SLD and FLD glass
- Good BQ it has splash proof cap. I like the new sigma finish.
- reasonable price - 300$ more than MK1.
- it must be available april 2011.
However if I'm in nikonland and I have the budget for 14-24 I'l buy it, even If I know that i'll break this lens.
I'm outdoor photogrpaher - slippery rocks in waterfalls , snow and tripod mount. I knew one day this setup will fall down.
BTW: Do you have any weight requirement. Last mounts you have collected a lot of gear
[/quote]
The sigma 12-24 is brilliant but only if you can get a good copy. I am always nervous to buy sigma because of the sample variance although I know sigma does have some great lenses.
Frank
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1303204841' post='7757']
Before I changecd to a FF body, I used the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 maybe more than any other lens; for landsacapes, monuments, architechture, travelling, what have you. At present I have nothing wider than my 24-70 and sorely miss the last 10 degrees of angle. My choice comes down to the 3 lenses mentioned above; the Nikon 14mm, 14-24mm f2.8 or the 16-35mm F4. The 14-24 takes no filters, but has outstanding piqué. What say you? Have I overlooked a lens out there? I should appreciate your opinions and experience!
[/quote]
I think it will be easier for you if you set your priorities:
Do you really need a zoom or can you use your legs instead of the zoom ring?
How much money do you plan to spend?
Type of photography (you've already mentioned this, but architechture and landscapes don't like each other when it comes to UWA zooms).
Every WA lens for FX format has it's drawbacks either in terms of vignetting, distortion, corner sharpness, price or even filter threads because of the huge front element. I've been looking for a decent WA for a time and my personal opinion is if you want a high quality zoom (better corner sharpness, less vignetting), you need to prepare yourself for filter holders (the Nikon 17-35mm may be an exception here) and flare. I believe there's no magical lens which has it all...
Oh and also, do search the net for sample shots... It gets boring after checking the 20th image but it really helps if you can find good image samples telling the lens' optical quality.
I narrowed down my personal search to the following (considering that I don't want to spend too much):
Zoom: Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 (but I want to try the lens before buying, and no local dealers keep it in their stocks)...
Fixed focus: Older AF or non-AF lenses, e.g. (a bit expensive) 15mm f/3.5, 18mm f/3.5, 20mm f/2.8D, Tokina 17mm f/3.5 etc... I bought the 20mm and loved it although it's corner sharpnes is not the top quality. But I enjoyed using it (small, suitable for close shots @ around f/4 in crowded streets, and has a vintage feel).
Serkan
What about the Voigtländer 20mm ?
There's of course, the Zeiss 18mm and Zeiss 21mm.
I think in this focal length class there is no real need for a zoom lens.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1303371566' post='7808']
What about the Voigtländer 20mm ?
There's of course, the Zeiss 18mm and Zeiss 21mm.
I think in this focal length class there is no real need for a zoom lens.
[/quote]
Voigtlaender might be a choice if you have limited budget... But the dream Zeiss 21mm is a bit expensive....
Serkan
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1303371566' post='7808']
What about the Voigtländer 20mm ?
There's of course, the Zeiss 18mm and Zeiss 21mm.
I think in this focal length class there is no real need for a zoom lens.
[/quote]
Well, I'd agree that 20mm on FX is plenty wide for most users, but sometimes it's handy to have a zoom also in the UWA realm, and 14mm vs. 20 or 21mm makes a difference.. With price roughly the same it's just more practical to opt for the 14-24 (unless filter capability is a must) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1303397173' post='7816']
Well, I'd agree that 20mm on FX is plenty wide for most users, but sometimes it's handy to have a zoom also in the UWA realm, and 14mm vs. 20 or 21mm makes a difference.. With price roughly the same it's just more practical to opt for the 14-24 (unless filter capability is a must) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[/quote]
The Voigtlander 20mm f3,5 SL II is very affordable... Very compact and light and fun to use.
If you combine it with the Samyang 14mm f2.8, you still have a combination that is less heavy, less bulky, and half the price.
MF though, and in focal range not as versatile. It does give you the benefit of a very compact, light wide angle that is nice to travel with, compared to the kg heavy 14-24mm zoom. So in that sense, worth consideration.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1303401168' post='7818']
The Voigtlander 20mm f3,5 SL II is very affordable... Very compact and light and fun to use.
If you combine it with the Samyang 14mm f2.8, you still have a combination that is less heavy, less bulky, and half the price.
MF though, and in focal range not as versatile. It does give you the benefit of a very compact, light wide angle that is nice to travel with, compared to the kg heavy 14-24mm zoom. So in that sense, worth consideration.
[/quote]
The Voigtlander 20mm is indeed compact, but IQ-wise it doesn't look so good in the tests, when compared to it's peers, and as for the Samyang, reading the forums it seems there is a lot of sample variance. And a huge distortion as well, which can be trated in PP but I understand that this takes it's toll in terms of resolution..?
So for me the choice would be 21mm Zeiss or the Nikkor 14-24 assuming I have the funds and given that, my choice is the latter. Should I be making a more price-driven decision, I'd opt for the 16-35 f4 (or a well tested Sigma 12-24).
|
