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

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

 

Hey, isn't that the same webiste that found the Canon 17-40L to be the
equal of your heralded Nikon 17-35 f/2.8?
Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

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

 

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. :-(

 

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

 

Since the images in most of 16-9.nets tests show sharpening artifacts, I'm
surprised that anyone puts any credibility to their tests.

 

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

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/594820

 

Chromatic aberrations have nothing to do with sharpening.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But the 18 months were up, right? You had no choice. The Rule Must Be
Obeyed. ;-)

Neil

 

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.

 

Hmmm? .....The full frame RAW sample of Canon 14mm @ 2.8 that one user
posted in the FM thread is rather impressive.

 

What about Cokin adapters and filters with a Cokin hood? Will any of
them be wide enough for this lens?

 

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

 

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

 

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