# Canon 14-24 2.8 - With our powers combined....



## brought1 (Aug 31, 2012)

With our powers combined, "We" the loyal and (for the most part...satisfied) customers of Canon command you (with a pretty pretty please....and cherry on top) to release your secret weapon - The 14-24 2.8L upon us to smite thee Nikon. 

Let it be known, this day of 31st (it just so happens to be my birthday - the "Big" 30) of Augusta, of 2012, that "We" ( I'm really just speaking for myself) will gather groupies to petition everyday, if we must, for you to release it ASAP.


Just trying to have a little fun here...

But seriously, why make us wait? Is it because you haven't quite released the 24-70 II and are afraid this will trump the profits of the 24-70? Some of you may think i'm crazy, but i've really considered purchasing the Nikon 14-24 2.8 (and all of the other verbage (SP) along with an Nikon mount to EF adapter just to use their lens MANUALLY....

From reading some of the other forums, it looks like Canon will be releasing a slew of other lenses before they even touch this one. And before the Die-Hard "Primers" respond, I have tons of primes that I love using, however, it would be nice not having to take a few of them...but rather having this bad girl. 

So everyone, don't take this posting too serious, it was meant to lighten the mood. 

I would appreciate any insightful commentary.

Have a GREAT Labor-day weekend. I'm photographing at a blues festival...a wedding...and a bunch of other stuff this weekend. 

J


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 31, 2012)

brought1 said:


> With our powers combined, "We" the loyal and (for the most part...satisfied) customers of Canon command you (with a pretty pretty please....and cherry on top) to release your secret weapon - The 14-24 2.8L upon us to smite thee Nikon.
> 
> Let it be known, this day of 31st (it just so happens to be my birthday - the "Big" 30) of Augusta, of 2012, that "We" ( I'm really just speaking for myself) will gather groupies to petition everyday, if we must, for you to release it ASAP.


Ha ha ha good one ... you can count on my vote for supporting your candidate (EF 14-24 f/2.8 L representing the Canon Party as the Prime Minister of Canon Zoom Lens Kingdom).
By the way ... HAPPY BIRTHDAY ... may you have many more with all your good dreams come true, especially the 14-24 f/2.8 L lens.


----------



## steliosk (Sep 1, 2012)

Canon should have a look on how many photographers holding canon full frame cameras with a nikon 14-24 sticked into it.

however i'd love to see a 12-24 like sigmas, only sharper!

i'd die for this, i'd kill for this, i'd go streight to hell for this


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

steliosk said:


> Canon should have a look on how many photographers holding canon full frame cameras with a nikon 14-24 sticked into it.


Nikon 14-24 on a Canon DSLR? ???


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 1, 2012)

Actually, very few who have tried a 14-24 are really that thrilled. It is notorious for flare.
Sure, in the studio with controlled lighting, its very good, but, in the real world with a sun and reflections off cars, roofs, buildings, Flare Flare Flare, it seems to just grab it out of nowhere.


----------



## YellowJersey (Sep 1, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Actually, very few who have tried a 14-24 are really that thrilled. It is notorious for flare.
> Sure, in the studio with controlled lighting, its very good, but, in the real world with a sun and reflections off cars, roofs, buildings, Flare Flare Flare, it seems to just grab it out of nowhere



Always the voice of reason.


----------



## Danielle (Sep 1, 2012)

I've never used the nikon one, but Im willing to bet if canon made and miraculously made it even better than the nikon one it will on the pretty damn expensive list.

I see journo's with them on their nikon's quite a lot.


----------



## Promature (Sep 1, 2012)

Wish granted. Go ye forth and procure the 16-35L.
http://www.adorama.com/CA16352U.html


----------



## moreorless (Sep 1, 2012)

steliosk said:


> Canon should have a look on how many photographers holding canon full frame cameras with a nikon 14-24 sticked into it.
> 
> *however i'd love to see a 12-24 like sigmas, only sharper!*
> 
> i'd die for this, i'd kill for this, i'd go streight to hell for this



To me this seems like the better route, Nikon's focus on making their sharpest zooms all f2.8 limates there market IMHO as it makes them expensive and bulky.

To me a 12-24mm or 14-24mm lens seems like its going to get the majority of its use from landscape/architecture photographers who will not really miss the larger appature. 16-35mm seems a much better range for an f/2.8 zoom to me offering both a wide and a relatively normal view for people photography, indeed Nikon had to bring back the 17-35mm for that reason I'd guess.

A Canon 14-24mm f/4 zoom would likely be alot cheaper and smaller than the Nikon and offer them a similar advanatge to the 70-200mm f/4's if you ask me.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 1, 2012)

steliosk said:


> Canon should have a look on how many photographers holding canon full frame cameras with a nikon 14-24 sticked into it.
> 
> *however i'd love to see a 12-24 like sigmas, only sharper!*
> 
> i'd die for this, i'd kill for this, i'd go streight to hell for this



Uhmmm... I can do this. ;D 
Tho there's no reason I'd want to bother when I have a D800 to put it on instead.
Just got my 14-24mm Nikon a couple days ago. The manual 20mm 2.8 prime is so small compared to it! I thot about just getting the 14mm Samyang but the Nikon has a lot less distortion in the central area, and it's only 5x as much $. :
It makes me giggle when I can see my toes in the viewfinder. 

I have an F<>EOS adapter but I'd want a different one that allows me to control the aperture lever on these G-series Nikon lenses. but... so much easier to just twist it onto a nikon body.




moreorless said:


> To me this seems like the better route, Nikon's focus on making their sharpest zooms all f2.8 limates there market IMHO as it makes them expensive and bulky.
> 
> To me a 12-24mm or 14-24mm lens seems like its going to get the majority of its use from landscape/architecture photographers who will not really miss the larger appature. 16-35mm seems a much better range for an f/2.8 zoom to me offering both a wide and a relatively normal view for people photography, indeed Nikon had to bring back the 17-35mm for that reason I'd guess.
> 
> A Canon 14-24mm f/4 zoom would likely be alot cheaper and smaller than the Nikon and offer them a similar advanatge to the 70-200mm f/4's if you ask me.



I kinda wish Nikon would've made this lens an f/4, sure might've been a lot smaller and lighter, and a bit cheaper.

But, since this thing will hold its value like a Canon L, I figured I'd buy a new one, use if for a while and see how it compares to my wide primes. If I choose to sell it, I won't lose very much.
One thing that already strikes me so far... 14mm doesn't _seem_ all that much wider than 20mm. I could live without it. But, since I have it I'll try justify it by hopefully throwing some big scenes in front of it this fall.

If only I could get that nifty TS-E24mm f/3.5 II and it's 17mm cousin to fit an F-mount...


----------



## pedro (Sep 1, 2012)

I'd be in for a 12-24 f2.8. about years down the road as a poster in an earlier thread guessed. But as an amateur I cannot justify its price tag, I guess. So the 16-35 2.8 plus the ND 10 filter seems quite the better move then. Or a 17-40 as I mostly do nightsky and Landscape from a tripod.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Actually, very few who have tried a 14-24 are really that thrilled.


I find that hard to believe ... at the local Photographic Society we have several Nikon 14-24 users and all of them have nothing but praise for it ... but I will speak to them during this weekend about flare.


----------



## messus (Sep 1, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Actually, very few who have tried a 14-24 are really that thrilled. It is notorious for flare.
> Sure, in the studio with controlled lighting, its very good, but, in the real world with a sun and reflections off cars, roofs, buildings, Flare Flare Flare, it seems to just grab it out of nowhere.



I find it hard to believe you know what you are talking about.
I among many, is using the Nikon 14-24 2.8 og my Canon FF bodies 5D2/5D3/1DX with an adapter.
And even if the lens becomes completely manual, and even cumbersome to operate, I still prefere it.

No lens is perfect, neither the Nikon 14-24 2.8, but even if it is a little prone to flares yes, it is still the overall best ultra wide angle lens on the market. Optically the Samyang 14/Rokinon 14 is slightly sharper in the corners, but it suffers from severe vignetting and moustache distortion in the center. I have them both.

The Nikon 14-24 on the Canon is my preferred choice in 90% of my usage scenarios, and I will continue to use it until Canon releases something equally good.

PS! The Nikon 14-24 should not be compared directly to eg. the Canon 16-35, since they are two completely different designs. The Nikon 14-24 is havy, big and bulky compared to the Canon 16-35, but still it is in another class optically. The Nikon 16-35 is comparable optically to the Canon 16-35. But I would love to have a Canon 14-24 2.8 which performs optically comparable to the Nikkor, even if it becomes LARGE and HEAVY !!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

messus said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, very few who have tried a 14-24 are really that thrilled. It is notorious for flare.
> ...


I agree


----------



## brought1 (Sep 1, 2012)

I really appreciate everyone's imput into this thread. The situation with the 14-24 is very similar to the 5DMK II Vs. 5D MKIII. For example, I purchased my 5d MKII last September...and I literally waited until the last moment in hopes that the 5dmk III was going to be released soon. 

But unfortunately, like most instances, you use what's available and make sure you do the darn best job you can with it. 

So, it may be another year until this lens is going to be released, so...I'll just make do with the 16-35, which is still a great lens. 

So...using a nikon lens on a canon body...I think I would really enjoy it. I have several Canon FD lenses that I use (with a converter, no doubt) with my EOS systems...and they surprisingly do a magnificent job. Actually, my favorite is my 70-210 barrel zoom (keep in mind...all manual focus - using AV) 

Let's be realistic, I would never take one of these setups to a paying shoot, for fun maybe...but the offshoot chance of not capturing what i'm being paid to shoot...UGH...

The real reason for the thread - is because I'm not terribly thrilled with the 17-40 or 16-35. Canon can do so much better, be we have to hold their feet to the fire. Ex. 70-200 2.8L II .....I don't care who you are or what you shoot on...hands down, this is the best ( and I mean THE BEST) 70-200 lens out there in this focal range. And if you think otherwise, then guess what...you're on your own - Sorry.

Anyways, everyone have a great labor day weekend. I'm going to start getting ready for a wedding i'm photographing today.

J


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

brought1 said:


> so...I'll just make do with the 16-35, which is still a great lens.
> 
> Ex. 70-200 2.8L II .....I don't care who you are or what you shoot on...hands down, this is the best ( and I mean THE BEST) 70-200 lens out there in this focal range.
> 
> ...


Yes, 16-35 is a great lens ... I am pretty happy with it until Canon releases 14-24 ... and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is the awesomest lens in its range across any brand.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Sep 7, 2012)

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/399059_10151055149808907_67379444_n.jpg

not sure if that link will make it through, but seeing neal's work with the 14-24 is just wow...obviously he's doing a whole lot in PP but still, that lens is just amazing...the 16-35 is good...but the 14-24 nikkor is great/amazing... I want I want I want!!!!!!


----------



## fotografnuntaiasi (Sep 11, 2012)

"however i'd love to see a 12-24 like sigmas, only sharper!"

Yap, like Sigma but with some precise focus..otherwise....will be a nikkor


----------



## gnd (Sep 11, 2012)

Rienzphotoz said:


> steliosk said:
> 
> 
> > Canon should have a look on how many photographers holding canon full frame cameras with a nikon 14-24 sticked into it.
> ...



Yeap:


----------



## gnd (Sep 11, 2012)

And speaking of Sigma I prefer it than this:




8) (Ok, a bit off-topic just for fun)


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 11, 2012)

Haven't looked back since I started using this combo (Novoflex adapter... cheap Chinese adapters off eBay couldn't achieve infinity focus & rattled):







I got tired of trying to find a 16-35 or 17-40 that had good edge-to-edge performance even at f/11 or did not have decentering issues.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 12, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Haven't looked back since I started using this combo (Novoflex adapter... cheap Chinese adapters off eBay couldn't achieve infinity focus & rattled):
> 
> I got tired of trying to find a 16-35 or 17-40 that had good edge-to-edge performance even at f/11 or did not have decentering issues.



+1
17-40mm f/4 L is great on crop but sux on FF if you're looking for corner detail at the wide end.

I was considering the Novoflex adapter, balked at the price for the first round of experiments with old F-mount glass.
How does the aperture control work? Are there any detents in it at all or just friction?..


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 12, 2012)

Aglet said:


> +1
> 17-40mm f/4 L is great on crop but sux on FF if you're looking for corner detail at the wide end.
> 
> I was considering the Novoflex adapter, balked at the price for the first round of experiments with old F-mount glass.
> How does the aperture control work? Are there any detents in it at all or just friction?..



Not even corner detail, but side detail around the middle of the frame, even extending significantly in from the edge, can be soft all the way to f/11... and on some copies not even clear up by f/11 (at which point diffraction softens the image).

The Novoflex is (sadly) worth the money. The aperture control is that blue dial you see. It has quite a bit of friction, since I didn't remove the rubber seal on the 14-24. No, no detents, but there are some indicators that generally tell you where ~f/4, f/11, & f/22 are. Or something like that. I can't remember... I calibrated it once. I just guess; I don't need much precision... I usually want to just shoot it wide open, or at ~f/8-f/11, or higher if I want gorgeous sunstars (which I can easily see via Live View, which you have to use to focus the lens anyway).

I wouldn't use this lens for event photography though, for obvious reasons!


----------



## Aglet (Sep 13, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Not even corner detail, but side detail around the middle of the frame, even extending significantly in from the edge, can be soft all the way to f/11... and on some copies not even clear up by f/11 (at which point diffraction softens the image).
> 
> The Novoflex is (sadly) worth the money. The aperture control is that blue dial you see. It has quite a bit of friction, since I didn't remove the rubber seal on the 14-24. No, no detents, but there are some indicators that generally tell you where ~f/4, f/11, & f/22 are. Or something like that. I can't remember... I calibrated it once. I just guess; I don't need much precision... I usually want to just shoot it wide open, or at ~f/8-f/11, or higher if I want gorgeous sunstars (which I can easily see via Live View, which you have to use to focus the lens anyway).
> 
> I wouldn't use this lens for event photography though, for obvious reasons!



Thanks for the info on the Novoflex adapter. I may consider it if for the future.

my 17-40 is a decent copy altho has a bit softer R side on the borders/edge when opened up.
at the wide end it cleans up quickly above f/8 but you only have until about /16 before diffraction softening starts to show up too.
Still, overall a disappointing lens on FF unless the only thing with textural detail is in the middle 2/3s of the frame.
It's time for an update on that old thing.

I was hoping the Tokina 17-35mm would be better. Haven't seen any detailed tests yet so not about to order one since it's not much cheaper.
Then again, there is Nikon's 17-35mm f/2.8 - certainly a little better in border-corner performance than the 17-40mm. Their slower 16-35mm VR is also a bit better.
I've got a chance to buy a nice 17-35 so need to do some chart-checkin.'

Would sure like a new 16-35 or 16-40 f/4 that performs well in the corners - for either mount.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 18, 2012)

> at the wide end it cleans up quickly above f/8 but you only have until about /16 before diffraction softening starts to show up too.



Well, you're lucky. The 17-40s I tested just never cleaned up satisfactorily until diffraction set in. One lens I had actually was repaired by Canon... when I got it back, it did clean up by ~f/8. I let it sit around without touching it or moving it for a few months. Next time I put it on, it was decentered terribly again. In my opinion there's just something wrong with the design of those ultra-wide zooms. Maybe they just do need the large bulbous front element a la the Nikon 14-24 to get sharp edge-to-edge sharpness... and of course that comes with its own set of issues (that I, personally, would put up with).

I tested the Tokina on my 5D Mark III & was not impressed. I briefly tested a Nikon 16-35 on my 5DIII & it seemed to perform respectably, but not as well as the Nikon 14-24. That being said, it may be worthwhile to revisit the 16-35 & really assess its edge-to-edge performance b/c the 77mm filter thread makes it extremely convenient for landscapes... ND filters, polarizers, grads, etc... all of which you *especially* need when shooting with the limited DR of Canon sensors.

One thing that bothers me about the 16-35 is the VR which, of course, wouldn't be engaged on a Canon body. I just feel like image stabilization adds more elements which translates to more chances of decentering/misalignment, etc. Perhaps I'm being paranoid?


----------



## Invertalon (Sep 18, 2012)

I would LOVE a 14-28 f/2.8... Would be amazing offering by Canon. 

I have faith they would be able to tackle flare issues... I mean, I rented the 8-15L and I could not get that lens to flare one bit, even pointed directly in the sun. I know they are different, but it still has a bulbous front element and captures everything no matter where you point it. I think Canon has some amazing coatings, plus the felt material they use all over now inside to prevent reflections. I noticed inside the 8-15L front element, it looks like the felt is laid perpendicular to the lens orientation, around the element inside of it... Hard to explain, but they do a lot to prevent flare issues.

I probably would not like the price though... But imagine a 14-28 f/2.8, 24-70 II and 70-200 II trio... Mmmmm.


----------



## Aglet (Sep 18, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> Well, you're lucky. The 17-40s I tested just never cleaned up satisfactorily until diffraction set in...



I seem to get inconsistent results with mine, if I look more closely.
Sometimes, at f/8-f/11 or even 16 I'm getting really decent corner sharpness and other times it's mush.
It seems, maybe that the times I'm getting good corner results the corners are only a few meters away, with the central subject at a similar distance. At longer distances it's very soft.



sarangiman said:


> I tested the Tokina on my 5D Mark III & was not impressed. I briefly tested a Nikon 16-35 on my 5DIII & it seemed to perform respectably, but not as well as the Nikon 14-24. That being said, it may be worthwhile to revisit the 16-35 & really assess its edge-to-edge performance b/c the 77mm filter thread makes it extremely convenient for landscapes... ND filters, polarizers, grads, etc... all of which you *especially* need when shooting with the limited DR of Canon sensors.



My Nikonian friend is intent on the 16-35 VR
I just picked up a very clean used Nikon 17-35/2.8 and will begin comparing it to my 17-40/4L in some hopefully controlled situations, each lens on their native bodies (D800 and 5D2) and eeking out the max I can from each one. The loser gets listed on Kijiji.



sarangiman said:


> One thing that bothers me about the 16-35 is the VR which, of course, wouldn't be engaged on a Canon body. I just feel like image stabilization adds more elements which translates to more chances of decentering/misalignment, etc. Perhaps I'm being paranoid?



I tend to agree. The more there is, the more there is to cause problems. Tamron's very decent 17-50/2.8 is an example of a good lens that went not-so-good with the addition of VC.

I love using some of my stabilized lenses for handheld walk-around shooting but when I'm on a tripod I prefer the best lens I have available for the job, usually a prime or a good performing stabilized zoom. If I'm taking the time to mount on a tripod, I'm also taking the time to get the best from my equipment in other ways.

None of the zooms I've looked at in this range are particularly good at FF border-corner performance tho.
I think Samyang's 14mm prime actually outperforms the Nikon 14-24 in the corners too, but at the expense of significant distortion in the central area which could be an issue if shooting stuff with straight lines. Water/horizons might be a problem in landscapes. 14-24/2.8 is working nicely enough otherwise, I'm really enjoying that WIDE end!


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 18, 2012)

> It seems, maybe that the times I'm getting good corner results the corners are only a few meters away, with the central subject at a similar distance. At longer distances it's very soft.



Right, that's the whole problem with wide-angle lenses. Small shifts in elements changes the actual focal plane in focus tremendously. Ideally, you want only the plane you're trying to focus on in focus across the field of view. The short focal lengths & high effective refractive indices of wide angle lenses necessitate small tolerances on lens focal plane/sensor parallel alignment. If anything is slightly off, a whole different plane will come into focus on the relevant portion of the sensor. 

Remember also lens manufacturers attempt to correct for field curvature to a certain extent; how well they do this probably also affects how well the lens can keep only the plane in focus. 

I usually test wide angle lenses by shooting a horizon (near infinity). Although in lots of wide-angle photography, you do actually want both something near & far in focus, with whatever that is near typically more on the edges of the frame, you don't want the scenario where your nearby object happens to be on the edge of your frame where your lens actually focuses better *beyond* the focal plane you've focused on!

So are you shooting w/ the Nikon 14-24 on your Canon? If so, what adapter are you using?


----------



## Aglet (Sep 18, 2012)

sarangiman said:


> So are you shooting w/ the Nikon 14-24 on your Canon? If so, what adapter are you using?



I decided to get D800s instead of an F<>EF adapter. 

Even before the WA zooms, my main issue with my landscape and other shots was not being able to push up shadows from my 5D2 without showing pattern noise.
The low (pattern) noise from the D800 is really appreciated and the extra MP come in handy too.

I've got one foot solidly in both camps right now and, if the new 6D doesn't show some serious improvement in DR and low ISO pattern noise I'll slowly be withdrawing from the Canon camp. Might keep the 5D2 just to continue using some Canon glass I like.


----------



## sarangiman (Sep 18, 2012)

Oh, sure, if you're a landscape shooter I see no reason to stick with Canon save for its TS-E lenses.

D800's >2 extra stops of pixel-level DR (and more normalized DR) is game changing for landscape photographers. Combine that with good graduated ND filters & you'll probably almost never have to HDR stuff.

Reason I'm not switching yet is b/c the 5D Mark III's focus accuracy/precision for <f/2 shallow DOF shots is pretty awesome. Precision on the D800 is great as well, but I'm trying to quantitate exact accuracy/precision before I decide which system works better for wedding/people photography. I've found a strange phenomenon with Nikon body/lenses in terms of focus accuracy at fast apertures, which I do not see on the Canon. Trying to confirm then publish my findings.

Do you use filters with your 14-24? 6x9 filters get incredibly expensive...


----------



## Razor2012 (Sep 18, 2012)

I bought the 70-200 2.8II, then the 16-35II, now waiting for the 24-70II. A 14-24 2.8L would be fantastic, as long as it was in the same league as the 24-70II. Almost no need for primes then because you'd have 14-200 @2.8 (jk for you prime boys).


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Sep 19, 2012)

Aglet said:


> sarangiman said:
> 
> 
> > So are you shooting w/ the Nikon 14-24 on your Canon? If so, what adapter are you using?
> ...



That's the position I am in, although I have the mk II and mkIII. The mk III focusses extremely well and is great at high ISO. I am mainly a landscape shooter and I have been more than frustrated at the horrid chroma noise at 100 - 800 ISO when you have to push the shadows because the camera doesn't have the DR. It's all very well having lenses that are sharp as a vegetable knife but if you have to soften them in NR software it renders them blunt. 

I doubt I would get this shot with the mk III (single shot Handheld with D800 and 14 - 24 at 22mm cropped to 5 x 4 processed in Silver efex pro2)




_another-look-through-to-big-ben-thru-the-arch by singingsnapper, on Flickr


----------



## Aglet (Sep 20, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> I doubt I would get this shot with the mk III (single shot Handheld with D800 and 14 - 24 at 22mm cropped to 5 x 4 processed in Silver efex pro2)



Nice image!

I also hope Nik software stays good despite the Google purchase.

Here's one at 14mm on the D800 I pushed in post to bring up the deep shadows.
Certainly nothing my 5D2 could provide.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Sep 20, 2012)

The google purchase makes me nervous too as Silver efex for one is the best B&W conversion software I know....


----------



## Aglet (Sep 20, 2012)

itsnotmeyouknow said:


> The google purchase makes me nervous too as Silver efex for one is the best B&W conversion software I know....



I agree.
I was originally using the new B&W effects plugin from Topaz, and it worked well and provided plenty of control. But Nik's Silver has quickly become my preferred tool because of the sweet results I can get in less time. I've made my own recipes in Topaz product that are very close but I just prefer slight tweaks on the Nik presets.


----------



## steliosk (Jan 30, 2013)

sarangiman said:


> Haven't looked back since I started using this combo (Novoflex adapter... cheap Chinese adapters off eBay couldn't achieve infinity focus & rattled):
> 
> I got tired of trying to find a 16-35 or 17-40 that had good edge-to-edge performance even at f/11 or did not have decentering issues.



+1 too


----------

