The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 Totally Destroys Canon's 14mm f/2.8L II Prime!!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 22, 2007.

  1. There's no surprise here! It seems these are great times to be a Nikon
    shooter or a Canon shooter with an adapter. How can Canon justify putting
    out such a crappy lens and charge over $2,000 for it? How can Canon justify
    putting out the 1Ds Mk III and not supply six Nikkor adapter rings with it?
    Canon needs to get their act together and contract Nikon to make their
    glass, and quickly if they want to be taken seriously by pro shooters. This
    is beyond criminal when the quality of the 14/2.8L II is equal to a $200 kit
    lens.

    <http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html>





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Dec 22, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Once again ignoring the OP's obvious troll.... the new Nikon lens
    looks to be a stella performer and could be the wide angle that I have
    been waiting for. Until now, there has been nothing from either camp
    (Nik/Can) that has matched this level of performance.... and to get
    this from a zoom is quite an achievement!

    I hope that husband gets his adapter into full production sometime
    soon... or better still, that Canon comes up with a worthy challenger!

    Rusty
     
    PixelPix, Dec 22, 2007
    #3
  4. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Bugga! A problem has just been pointed out to me about this lens.....
    due to the front element/hood design, the use of ND Grads is real
    problem. :-(
     
    PixelPix, Dec 22, 2007
    #4
  5. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Douglas Guest

    Although Canon have made some notable (and questionable) advances in lens
    designs in the past 25 years, they are not known for producing extremely
    high optical quality lenses. In fact most Canon lenses are of the plastic
    element variety and could be discarded from serious consideration in image
    quality. Their line-up of lenses then, isn't all that crash hot or very good
    value.

    Way back when the T90 was released a leading magazine editor remarked that
    if you could get Nikon and Canon to agree, the world's best camera would be
    a Canon using Nikon lenses.

    I think he'd change his mind if he could see the results of the 3D. All the
    pictures on that site show Rita, is what us older shooters have known for
    most of our life. Canon make leading edge (often faulty) cameras but Olympus
    and Nikon make the best lenses.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Dec 22, 2007
    #5
  6. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    default Guest

    default, Dec 22, 2007
    #6
  7. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Some more info about this test and the canon adapter development can
    be found here....

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/594820
     
    PixelPix, Dec 22, 2007
    #7
  8. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Chromatic aberrations have nothing to do with sharpening.
     
    Alfred Molon, Dec 22, 2007
    #8
  9. Amazing! Pointing out "obvious" facts is considered trolling. Wonders
    never cease around here.
    This would be nice since this is a Canon shooter's dream lens, optically
    speaking, of course.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 22, 2007
    #9
  10. Yep! This major design flaw is why I have passed on getting this lens. The
    old 17-35/2.8 Nikkor will do for me.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 22, 2007
    #10
  11. Thanks! It almost makes me wish I didn't sell the old Mk III. Still don't
    have my D3 and I'm getting hotter every day over it.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 22, 2007
    #11
  12. I know and can accept Canon was never an optical company and the lenses they
    produced were really never up to standards. My problem with them is they
    should charge accordingly. If the new 14/2.8L II was priced accordingly at
    $400 MSRP it would be an acceptable lens for the performance level given. I
    found this out with the 500/4L IS USM. I could force myself to live with it
    were priced at $1,500 MSRP.
    Absolutely! I loved the results I got from the Mk III and my Nikkors.
    If it weren't for the D3's announcement I would be shooting Canon with my
    Nikkors for most stuff and buy a few L lenses for when I really need AF. If
    the D3 can provide the same image quality as my old Mk III I will be in
    Utopia.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 22, 2007
    #12
  13. LOL! You're right. It seems these tests will always bring someone out of
    the woodwork to try to shoot down the facts. Sadly, Canon's 14/2.8 really
    isn't a good lens.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 22, 2007
    #13
  14. But the 18 months were up, right? You had no choice. The Rule Must Be
    Obeyed. ;-)

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 22, 2007
    #14
  15. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    Here's a fact for ya. The Nikon pics in that test were sharpened
    considerably. I know this because he posted a link to the RAW file on
    the FM forum.
    No doubt that the Canon pics would have looked better with similar
    sharpening.

    And why doesn't he show the same part of the frame in the top photo of
    this comparison?
    http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

    The new Nikon lens might be a great performer, but you can draw no
    worhtwhile comparisons from this test. It seems that its strength is
    in the corners of the frame which would benefit those with FF bodies.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 22, 2007
    #15
  16. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Hmmm? .....The full frame RAW sample of Canon 14mm @ 2.8 that one user
    posted in the FM thread is rather impressive.
     
    PixelPix, Dec 22, 2007
    #16
  17. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    TH O Guest

    What about Cokin adapters and filters with a Cokin hood? Will any of
    them be wide enough for this lens?
     
    TH O, Dec 22, 2007
    #17
  18. LOL! Nope, I broke the contract early and had a little less than 15-months
    left. I did make a $100 profit on the deal but I'm suffering profusely
    since I don't have a high-ISO performer to hold me over till the D3 comes.
    If I had known Nikon was going to be such bastards and punish me like this I
    wouldn't have sold the Mk III so fast.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 22, 2007
    #18
  19. Sour grapes! Even if this is the case it still doesn't excuse all that CA.
    Of course, like you will say, you can deal with it in post. That's not the
    issue; it's an overpriced crappy prime that got its butt kicked by a
    dirt-cheap zoom.
    Of course they would, if you like plastic.
    Ask him.
    Just a little clue, this is the targeted audience for this type of lens.
    Only an idiot would put it on a 1.6X crop camera. The APS-H (1.3X crop) of
    the old Mk III is a nice compromise. Sadly, Canon's 14/2.8 would be just as
    much of an embarrassment on the APS-H sensor. Even you that seek mediocrity
    wouldn't be happy with purchasing the 14/2.8L II.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 22, 2007
    #19
  20. Maybe he got lucky and got the one decent sample out of twelve. This is the
    most frequent complaint about L glass; you need to sample many to find the
    good one.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 22, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.