Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: shadowblade on July 31, 2015, 11:46:38 am
-
Has anyone compared the sharpness and aberrations (CA, etc.) of these two lenses at similar apertures, preferably on the same body? Which gives a sharper image (particularly in the corners)? What about aberrations?
Obviously there are differences (f/2.8 vs f/4, and 11mm at the wide end vs 14mm, as well as being entirely different lens mounts), but, for the average landscape photographer, who can use both lenses on a Canon or Sony body and doesn't usually care too much about AF or f/2.8, they're comparable lenses.
Photozone has tested both of these, but, as the Canon was tested on a 50MP 5Ds and the Nikon on a 24MP D3x, the numbers generated aren't directly comparable.
-
I plan on selling my 14-24 and replacing it with the new Canon 11-24 myself as soon as I hear some feedback on comparisons. Using the Nikon zoom on anything other than a Nikon body is a terrible inconvenience to say the least, and getting down to 11mm is a wonderful advantage. The 14-24 has been setting the bar for quite a while and hoping the Canon is at least as good if not better.
-
I plan on selling my 14-24 and replacing it with the new Canon 11-24 myself as soon as I hear some feedback on comparisons. Using the Nikon zoom on anything other than a Nikon body is a terrible inconvenience to say the least, and getting down to 11mm is a wonderful advantage. The 14-24 has been setting the bar for quite a while and hoping the Canon is at least as good if not better.
What body are you shooting it on?
According to Photozone, the 11-24 shows significant corner softness on the 5Ds, especially at the 11mm and 24mm ends (not so much in the middle) and at f/4-f/5.6. I wonder how it compares with the 14-24 on the same sensor, though (obviously only comparing the apertures and focal lengths available on both lenses - any ability to shoot at 11mm is better than none at all).
-
What a majority of folks would really need as a lens is an excellent and slightly lighter 14-28 f4 I would think. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Frankly, I am impressed that you can find something interesting enough to shoot in order to justify the $3,000.00 lens. I find it very hard to compose non-sky-heavy shots at 14mm (the cheapo Samyang manual lens). I don't do architecture interiors, though.
-
Frankly, I am impressed that you can find something interesting enough to shoot in order to justify the $3,000.00 lens. I find it very hard to compose non-sky-heavy shots at 14mm (the cheapo Samyang manual lens). I don't do architecture interiors, though.
At least half my shots go that wide. Usually I'll take the shot using a panorama technique (shift-stitched using the TS-E 24L or TS-E 17L or rotationally stitched using a 35mm or 50mm lens) but some situations don't allow for multiple-exposure techniques.
-
Frankly, I am impressed that you can find something interesting enough to shoot in order to justify the $3,000.00 lens. I find it very hard to compose non-sky-heavy shots at 14mm (the cheapo Samyang manual lens). I don't do architecture interiors, though.
+1
Wasn't that long ago, that anything under 20mm on FF was considered super wide. I also struggle with composition with superwide. That is why I shoot the Nikon 16-35mm even though it has bad distortion at 16mm. I just don't shoot it that wide most of the time. A lot of times I look at a subject I and think wide, I end up selecting an image that is shot at a much longer focal length.