06-14-2010, 06:26 PM
Thanks Geno, nice comparison.
Is the front element shape really a function of the maximum aperture? Although designed for four thirds, pana & oly 7-14 f/4 lenses are similarly shaped. Same with sigma 8-16 & 12-24 lenses (wider of course but still).
If so, complaining about this shape seems like complaining about a FWD car having a four wheels transmission.
Greetings,
S.
[quote name='genotypewriter' date='14 June 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1276520529' post='495']
Thanks for the replies guys!
lol... lately I've come to realise how silly this wide-angle competition between Canon and Nikon [fans] is. IMO, anyone who calls themselves a demanding landscape photographer should either go 8x10 film or digital medium format instead of fooling around with tiny 35mm sensors and their CA-ridden wides. Splitting hairs over whether Canon or Nikon is better for wide-angles is a silly exercise.
That said (and I don't mean to sound biased)... Canon's TS-E 17L, TS-E 24L II and 24L II all surpass Nikon's 14-24 and Zeiss's 21 & 18 Distagons. The only hole is in the 14mm end. The easy solution to that is creating a hole in Nikon's line-up by going for a good sample of the Sigma 12-24 and shooting at 12mm <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Nikon's front element problem is mainly because of its max aperture. I don't know who shoots landscapes at f/2.8 or has trouble focusing with a 14mm to need the f/2.8. Knowing Canon, I doubt they will make their 14-24 (if they make one) any slower than f/2.8, unfortunately.
[/quote]
Is the front element shape really a function of the maximum aperture? Although designed for four thirds, pana & oly 7-14 f/4 lenses are similarly shaped. Same with sigma 8-16 & 12-24 lenses (wider of course but still).
If so, complaining about this shape seems like complaining about a FWD car having a four wheels transmission.
Greetings,
S.
[quote name='genotypewriter' date='14 June 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1276520529' post='495']
Thanks for the replies guys!
lol... lately I've come to realise how silly this wide-angle competition between Canon and Nikon [fans] is. IMO, anyone who calls themselves a demanding landscape photographer should either go 8x10 film or digital medium format instead of fooling around with tiny 35mm sensors and their CA-ridden wides. Splitting hairs over whether Canon or Nikon is better for wide-angles is a silly exercise.
That said (and I don't mean to sound biased)... Canon's TS-E 17L, TS-E 24L II and 24L II all surpass Nikon's 14-24 and Zeiss's 21 & 18 Distagons. The only hole is in the 14mm end. The easy solution to that is creating a hole in Nikon's line-up by going for a good sample of the Sigma 12-24 and shooting at 12mm <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Nikon's front element problem is mainly because of its max aperture. I don't know who shoots landscapes at f/2.8 or has trouble focusing with a 14mm to need the f/2.8. Knowing Canon, I doubt they will make their 14-24 (if they make one) any slower than f/2.8, unfortunately.
[/quote]