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. I thought he said he bought his equipment.

    Just not an issue for me. I don't buy cameras planning to sell them later.
    In most cases I eventually do, but I buy them for the pleasure of owning and
    using them. I still have my D70s (my first Nikon DSLR) and have no plans to
    get rid of it ever. I wouldn't buy or sell a D2Xs in any case; it's just not
    my kind of camera.

    That's me, except for the insanely high profit margin part.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 24, 2007
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. He also said that he doesn't make any money off of his website or from
    advertisers.
    Well, I used to feel the same way. I still love my old Nikon FE. Digital
    changed all of that. It defies logic and common sense these days to hold
    onto a dSLR more than 18-months due to severe deprecation. The dSLR now
    falls into the same category as other throwaway consumer electronics like
    the cell phone. Now if Canon and Nikon would introduce a modular body that
    can be upgraded by the user in the field. Kinda like a digital back.
    That's anything over the traditional and very common 40% rate.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 24, 2007
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Tony Polson Guest


    I think you're probably right. I just hope that the 12-24mm doesn't
    have the same huge variability that afflicted the early production of
    the 17-35mm f/2.8.
     
    Tony Polson, Dec 24, 2007
    #63
  4. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Tony Polson Guest


    You're welcome. As you are probably aware, I am not a Sigma fan, but
    I was impressed with the 14mm. I also got very good results with the
    Sigma 15-30mm EX zoom, which could provide a low cost alternative to
    the 14-24mm Nikkor. However, if the early tests of the Nikkor are a
    true indication of its optical quality, it could be one of Nikon's
    best ever lenses.


    With any luck, there will be a few 14mm Nikkors coming onto the used
    market once the 14-24mm starts selling in volume. You might be
    pleasantly surprised.
     
    Tony Polson, Dec 24, 2007
    #64
  5. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Max Perl Guest

    We need a biogon-design to get a really good wide-angle I think. It would
    require the mirror to be locked up.....without draining the battery. The the
    LCD could be used as viewfinder. Never heard people complain about
    their biogon's.......?
     
    Max Perl, Dec 24, 2007
    #65
  6. I must have missed that.
    Not as long as you still enjoy owning and using the camera, which I do. I
    don't care about depreciation. Now I might, if I were buying $5000 camera
    bodies. But I never have and probably never will, since I'm just not
    interested in those big heavy bombers.

    If we were still back in the days of the early DSLRs of course it would be
    different. A friend of mine is into Canon gear, buys expensive stuff (any
    white lens is "expensive" to me), and when he switched from 35mm to digital
    his first DSLR was 3 megapixels. I believe the early Nikon DSLRs were 3
    megapixels also (that was before I became a Nikon fanatic and I'm not really
    familiar with the early models). Now *that* is obviously limiting, without
    even considering the other technological advances. My friend makes large
    prints for local competitions, and the prints made from that first 3MP Canon
    were not at all satisfactory to my eye in terms of sharpness.

    So in those early days I suppose it did make sense to get rid of the old
    bodies and buy new ones fairly often. But it seems to me that the curve of
    technological advance has flattened considerably in recent years, and
    there's much less need to upgrade regularly today. I love my D80 but could
    easily make do with my old D70s if I had to without feeling terribly
    deprived.

    I don't expect ever to make a profit on any camera, or come close to
    breaking even. I never have yet, and I've bought and sold an awful lot of
    cameras.

    *Lenses* may be a different story. I still have a lot of Minolta Maxxum
    lenses, a few of them very desirable today to Sony DSLR owners. I have a
    Minolta 135mm f/2.8 that I bought used but mint for about $80, it's fairly
    rare and I've seen this lens sell for over $300 on eBay. But generally
    speaking I don't expect to make any money on lenses either -- I just won't
    lose as much as I will on the bodies. But I don't look at this sort of thing
    as a business.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Dec 24, 2007
    #66
  7. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Tony Polson Guest


    It seems that all newly announced DSLRs have the Live View feature.

    So all we need is mirror lock-up, as you say!
     
    Tony Polson, Dec 24, 2007
    #67
  8. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Paul Furman Guest

    Apparently the D3 doesn't do live view with mirror lockup. Odd.
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 24, 2007
    #68
  9. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    TH O Guest

    Ever seen any comparison photos showing UV filters degrading image
    quality? (and no, $3 filters don't count)
     
    TH O, Dec 24, 2007
    #69
  10. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Scott W Guest

    Not just a mirror lock-up but a mechanical one that does not take
    power to keep up.

    But even if you have that a non-retro-focus wide-angle lens on a DSLR
    might not give good results. Lieca had to stuggle with this a fair
    bit.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 24, 2007
    #70
  11. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    default Guest

    Rita is exactly right about getting rid of digital bodies on-time. It is
    not always exactly 18 months though. Up to the announcement of the
    replacement model for you body, you can sell it for a significant fraction
    of the full retail price, possibly up to 80%. Within a week of the
    announcement of the replacement model, the used prices fall quickly as the
    market suddenly gets many used ones. Then it is too late.

    The most important part of "buy low, sell high" is "buy low". You have to
    make the money on the purchase, not the sale. If you were really shrewd and
    lucky in the purchase then you can sell it after using it for 18 months or
    so of having a current camera for close to your purchase price and the
    camera has cost you next to nothing. Then you can buy the new one which
    won't cost much more, or even less than your old one and still get to use a
    current camera. You always get to use a current camera body without much
    additional cash outlay.

    This is even more so with lenses. They often sell for 80-90% of the price
    of new _in your area_. This seems attractive to buyers since they don't
    have to pay taxes on the used lens and most don't want to deal with
    shipping.

    However there are much better prices available for those willing to shop
    around. Canon USA refurbished lenses, which I find to be better than new,
    sell at Adorama for almost half what lenses cost here in the big box stores.
    This means that when I am done with a lens, I can easily sell it for enough
    to cover the cost of the lens, hood, shipping and taxes. Fluctuating
    currency rates, particularly the very low US dollar and finding the cheapest
    shipping make this a good deal. There is no duty or excise on imported
    camera equipment here, just sales tax. Used lenses here still seem to sell
    based on a fraction of the current local store prices which Canon hasn't
    adjusted. Sigma lenses seem to lose value in the used market a lot faster
    though. It makes financial sense to by Canon branded lenses.

    This makes digital photography almost free other than the loss of interest,
    opportunity and inflation on the money you have tied up in whatever you
    presently own.
     
    default, Dec 24, 2007
    #71
  12. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Max Perl Guest

    It must be a mechanical feature to lockup the mirror.....and Nikon must have
    decided
    that this feature is not needed......compared to the cost for making such a
    feature.
    It also requires someone to make such a lens........the old Nikkor 21mm
    could be used
    and maybe also some Voigtländer/Cosina lenses. Does a Biogon exist for the
    Leica M?
    With mirror lockup......a lot of rangefinder lenses may be used with the
    right adapter.
    But this will of course be a low volume product.

    By the way.....maybe another topic.....but I think this product is quite
    nice......if you have
    a LF camera which takes Graflock backs. A funny way to make panorama
    pictures using
    LF lenses with your tiny DSLR.......or just utilize the full control of the
    image......macro etc.

    http://www.enjoyyourcamera.com/Lens....html?XTCsid=5d11ecbfa5b7126299de0b652f4f8f21
     
    Max Perl, Dec 25, 2007
    #72
  13. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Paul Furman Guest

    I think Tony's mention of the issue with non-retro-focus lens problems
    with oblique angles on digital sensors may be the reason. I just thought
    that such an expensive pro camera should have that simple feature but it
    probably doesn't make sense.
    The limitation with that is large format lenses are long focal lengths.
    Neat idea though.
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 25, 2007
    #73
  14. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Max Perl Guest

    Yes.....you have to use the panorama function and take a number of pictures
    and stitch them together to get a wide angle image.
    A 90mm lens is easy to get......but you can get at least a 65mm lens......
     
    Max Perl, Dec 25, 2007
    #74
  15. It would be wise to automate the mirror lock up with such lenses as
    well :)
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 25, 2007
    #75
  16. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Tony Polson Guest


    The Carl Zeiss ZM range of lenses for Leica M mount includes a 15mm
    f/2.8 Biogon, two 21mm Biogons (an f/2.8 based on the design for the
    Contax G Series, and a 21mm f/4.5 based on the classic 21mm lens for
    the Contarex), a 25mm f/2.8, a 28mm f/2.8 and a 35mm f/2.

    All Biogons. Take your pick!
     
    Tony Polson, Dec 25, 2007
    #76
  17. Clean them up and dump them. There's no sense in warehousing equipment you
    aren't and probably will never use again. Convert them unwanted lenses to a
    nice new Nikkor that you'll use almost every day.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Dec 25, 2007
    #77
  18. The 14-24 must be a fine lens. Anyone got any info about the 17-55 2.8?

    --
    With or without religion, you would have good people doing
    good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good
    people to do evil things, that takes religion.

    Steven Weinberg
     
    Ockham's Razor, Dec 25, 2007
    #78
  19. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Paul Furman Guest

    The Sigma 14mm has a very narrow slot for drop in sheet material cut to
    fit. I think there just isn't room to allow more for such a wide lens.
    The Canon also doesn't seem to accept filters and has the built in petal
    hood.
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 25, 2007
    #79
  20. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Tony Polson Guest


    There seems to be a presumption among manufacturers that if you use
    digital, there is no need for you to use filters.
     
    Tony Polson, Dec 25, 2007
    #80
    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.