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. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    Two things you should know about me .... I don't drink and I have no
    interest in seeing your crabs.
    Annika1980, Dec 23, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Oh well, your loss. While you're a guest in my house I will still treat you
    good and show a little dignity towards you. I guess a Pepsi and prime rib
    will have to do. Like I said, I can back up my end, can you?

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 23, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    Yuck! I'm a Diet Coke and NY Strip man myself.
    Had that exact thing at Outback last night, in fact.

    I understand that you back up your end to a lot of guys.
    As for me, my mouth don't write checks my ass can't cash.
    Annika1980, Dec 23, 2007
  4. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    Too bad your fuckin dad didn't have that philosophy.

    UV filters for protection? They make lens caps for that, you know.
    Why buy expensive glass and then make it shoot through some cheap
    glass? Of course, I'm one to talk having shot many pics through
    windows and all.
    Annika1980, Dec 23, 2007
  5. Ah, you like eating out of dumpsters. I'll treat you to an Outback dinner
    and have a salad. I can't bring myself to eat that garbage Outback.
    I believe you, especially when you always have a mouthful of manly goodness.
    I always thought you liked the North American White Snake.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 23, 2007
  6. It's all good, especially when shooting in the rain! It's pissing like a
    Pakistani racehorse over here.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 23, 2007
  7. Ken Rockwell said he did buy his, online as he buys everything else I
    believe. Rita buys 'em the same way as far as I know. Ken got his order in
    very early and that's probably the difference.

    The Noct was f/1.2 -- and Rita said it sold for a very good price.
    Well, I don't endorse the "18 month rule" but then our approach to these
    things is very different. Rita apparently buys one or two high-end camera
    bodies and sells them as new ones come out. That suits Rita's purpose but
    wouldn't suit mine. I prefer to buy cameras when they've been out for quite
    some time, usually at or after the end of their production run, since their
    prices are then significantly lower and I presume any initial bugs in
    production will have been worked out. I have no interest in high-end models.
    And I have no particular interest in selling the ones I do buy, unless or
    until I've decided to switch to a different make or type, which has happened
    a very few times in the last 40+ years. Consequently I always have several
    cameras, which I enjoy (though right now I have far too many non-Nikons and
    have got to get a lot of 'em on eBay). Since I switched to Nikon a few years
    ago and am an old geezer, I'll probably never change brands again and will
    just keep accumulating Nikons as long as I have room for them.

    Neil Harrington, Dec 23, 2007
  8. <guffaw!>

    Yes, that may be the explanation.

    Neil Harrington, Dec 23, 2007
  9. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Tony Polson Guest

    Because of the angle of view of a 14-24mm on a full frame DSLR or a
    film SLR, a polariser won't work. It will polarise some part of the
    field of view but will have no effect on other parts, leading to a
    horribly uneven effect across the frame. So whether or not you can
    actually fit a polariser to a 14-24mm f/2.8 is somewhat irrelevant.

    I never use a polariser on any lens wider than 35mm on full frame. On
    DX format I will go no wider than 24mm with a polariser.
    Tony Polson, Dec 23, 2007
  10. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    cmyk Guest

    Maybe the comparison should have been between the Canon 14mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 14mm f/2.8, or between the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L
    USM and the Nikon 14-24mm G (at least where their ranges overlap).

    If you think the Canon 14mm prime is bad, the Nikon 14mm prime is even worse! See:

    cmyk, Dec 23, 2007
  11. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Max Perl Guest

    For the sky you are can be very uneven using a polarizer.
    But it some cases the polarizer could make sense I more
    saturated greens on leaves.....also it you have some water in the foreground
    it can be nice to remove reflections or make the water transparent.
    It depends very much on the scene. You can have an element very close to the
    lens where a polarizer makes sense.

    The 14-24 is probably not ment to be used on film cameras for B/W films. But
    it would be nice to have the possiblity to use e.g. a yellow filter.
    Strange Nikon does not mention anything about using filters on this lens?
    .......or do they
    say it is just not possible?
    Max Perl, Dec 23, 2007
  12. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Tony Polson Guest

    That's true. I accept all those points, Max. But you have to be very
    careful, and it helps if you know what you are doing, which I know you
    do. For the average amateur, it is best to avoid using a polariser
    with ultra-wide angle lenses.
    This lens looks like it will be a big seller. I'm sure that there
    will be an aftermarket filter adapter before long.
    Tony Polson, Dec 23, 2007
  13. They are also very useful when shooting window displays through the
    William Graham, Dec 23, 2007
  14. Even with the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor having the handicap of being a zoom it still
    is far superior to both versions of the 16-35/2.8 and the 14/2.8.
    Yep, Nikon's 14/2.8 is a piece of crap, there's no disputing that. The
    issue here is a Nikkor being crippled by being a zoom lens that costs less
    money still beats a prime costing considerably more.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 23, 2007
  15. Kenny boy gets his hardware donated to him. I got to stand in line like the
    rest of the world.
    He knew that. He was just trying to trip me up. Like I didn't know my Noct
    was f/1.9
    Let's see, in the equation the only variable is the dSLR body. The body is
    the only throwaway item in the equation. You can't even sell an almost new
    D2xs for more than $1,800. Considering that it was a $4,500 body less than
    18-months ago, that sucks. That is a steep curve and a kick in the ass in
    18-months. There's even speculation that the 18-month rule needs to be
    revised and shortened to 16-months. The point of interest Bret always tries
    to neglect is the money is in the lens system. A decent lens system will
    last a lifetime and a half, unless you buy Canon. We all know what happened
    to the FD mount. Bastards! Buy decent lenses and they will always increase
    in value. That's why I buy any and every lens I can get my hands on and
    flip it for profit when I'm done playing with it. Of course there are
    keepers that I hold onto for personal use and probably never sell unless
    they lose their appeal to me or the profit margin is insanely high.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 23, 2007
  16. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Paul Furman Guest

    That site rates the $1400 Nikon 14 better than the $1800 Canon. The
    review complains about the Nikon & offers alternatives but they haven't
    tested any primes and the zooms are all cropped frame. I have a Sigma
    12-24 full frame and it has some nice qualities: low distortion, even
    center to corner performance, etc but razor sharpness is not one of it's
    features. I also have a 20mm/2.8 & it's not all that exciting. The
    16/2.8 is great but it's a fisheye. The 18mm rectilinear isn't that
    great from reviews I've read. The thing is, it just is not easy
    designing a wide lens for full frame. Even for APS I've considered the
    14/2.8... it's 'only' $800 used :)
    Paul Furman, Dec 23, 2007
  17. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    cmyk Guest

    That doesn't seem to square with their statements:
    "Interestingly, the Canon 14mm f/2.8L ($1800) would appear to outperform (by a slim margin) only the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 ($1420). Both
    of these rather expensive primes are seemingly outpaced by each of the four zooms we included in this report."

    cmyk, Dec 23, 2007
  18. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Tony Polson Guest

    The Sigma 14mm is a surprisingly good alternative.
    Tony Polson, Dec 23, 2007
  19. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Max Perl Guest

    It seems that these "super-zooms" often are better in the mid zoom range (in
    this case at 20mm)
    than the corresponding prime lens. Probably because of more time spent on
    development and
    use of expensive glass etc. I sold my AFD 24/2.8 after I got the 17-35 zoom
    which I use as a
    variable 24mm lens :) ......the 12-24 will be a pretty good 18mm lens
    even at a full frame body
    I hope.....
    Max Perl, Dec 23, 2007
  20. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Paul Furman Guest

    Ah, thanks for pointing that out.
    "Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D. Much more expensive than the Sigmas. And frankly, I
    don't see enough difference to justify the cost difference. The Nikkor
    does seem to have less problems with contrast control than the Sigma,
    though the problem isn't completely gone. Optically, I don't see much to
    distinguish the two other than a slightly warmer color out of the Sigma."

    And Bjørn Rørslett gives the lens his highest rating with some
    reservations. Granted he's a Nikon worshiper, he's still real picky.

    If I can get a used Nikkor for $800 that seems a bit better than the
    Sigma... or maybe not... I'm looking into it. I would like a really nice
    super-wide and plan to go full frame at some point, anyways it would be
    useful for APS though not for the new price.
    Paul Furman, Dec 24, 2007
    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.