[wim]

[quote name='genotypewriter' date='14 June 2010 - 03:02 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. [/quote]Based on my own tests and comparisons, I totally agree <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I owned a 14-24, with G-EOS adapter, and sold the lens after acquiring the TS-E 17. The 14-24 is no competition for the TS-E. Neither is the ZE with its huge field relevant vignetting, and I am not even talking about the 18 distagon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

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=':lol:' />

Nah, even cropping a 12 mm image to 14 mm, or even 18 mm, is not going to give you the same quality, not even close <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I got a 12-24, best of three, and when I saw the results in real life I ran back to the shop, and exchanged it for above mentioned Nikkor 14-24, even though it cost twice as much (Of course, than then got superceded by the TS-E 17 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />).



However, the 14L II is actually not bad at all for a fast 14 mm. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.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.

Yep, also think so.



However, F/2.8 in an extreme UWA is great for low light shooting <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim