Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: John Koerner on January 31, 2015, 03:40:53 pm
-
Lost in the buzz over a possible new 50 mpx Canon camera is a rumor of a new Canon 11-24 mm super-wide L lens:
http://photorumors.com/2015/01/30/canon-ef-11-24mm-f4l-usm-lens-specifications
If Canon's new 16-35 mm f/4 and new 24-70 f/2.8 L are any indication of the quality of this new ultra-ultra-wide-angle lens, then the new 11-24 will be a direct challenge Nikon's 14-24mm.
The way Nikon did things always made more sense to me: 14-24, then 24-70, then 70-200. It was a natural range progression that just made sense.
Canon did things bass-ackwards IMO by having a 16-35 (???), then 24-70, then 70-200. Never understood why Canon had a 16-35 rather than a 14-24 (the OCD in me couldn't accept it).
Regarding existing zooms by both brands, two truths stand out:
Canon's 24-70 II is superior to Nikon's 24-70.
Canon's 70-200 II is superior to Nikon's 70-200
If Canon now comes out with an 11-24 L-quality zoom, that equals (or eclipses) Nikon's venerated 14-24, as Canon's other new zooms have done, then not only will Canon have a lock on the 3 most important zoom ranges, but they'll squeeze out a little more angle potential as well.
It is only a matter of time before Canon comes out with equal-quality, or better, sensors for their cameras (which are already more fully-functional and feature-rich than the others) ... and Canon already has the best lenses to go in front of their sensors (from tilt-shifts, to zooms, to super-telephoto). So, really, in one fell swoop (simply by upgrading their sensors) Canon will across the board offer the best of pretty much everything.
And because they're heavy into video production too, being the pioneer of this expansion as well, I expect their 5D Mk IV to be a game-changer with true 4K video over a truly great sensor. Not sure if the 5D Mk III S will be, but we'll see. It will be much more difficult and time-consuming for these other new companies (Samsung/Sony) to equal Canon's lens arsenal and fully-functional cameras than it will be for Canon to simply upgrade their sensors.
For me, it seems wiser just to accumulate these new and superior lenses, and simply wait for the latter eventuality of Canon's sensor evolution (or licensing from Sony), than it does to buy "a new sensor" in a lesser overall camera ... with no 4K, and with an elder (or no real) lens lineup, and not the same level of full camera ergonomics/functionality either.
But to each his own,
Jack
-
Regarding existing zooms by both brands, two truths stand out:
Canon's 24-70 II is superior to Nikon's 24-70.
Canon's 70-200 II is superior to Nikon's 70-200
While I hope Canon releases a spectacular super-wide zoom, I would be interested in how these 2 TRUTHS were derived? The testing I have seen pretty much puts both pairs of lenses at about the same spot. In fact, I would put money down that it would be impossible to tell the difference handed a stack a photos from each. The Nikkors are both slightly sharper than the equivalent Canons, but the Nikkor 24-70mm exhibits double the CA of it's Canon competitor.
-
I would hope the new 11-24 is better or a least as good as the 8 or so year old 14-24 from Nikon.
From my landscape/night scape perspective I look at this way:
1. At a price point of over 3K, this lens will not be common one in the field.
2. It shares the same fixed Tulip shade as the Nikon and thus will be a nightmare to filter (yes, filters are still important, and possibly more important on wide than anywhere else)
3. It's an F4 lens as many of the newer Canon lenses seem to be, which is interesting. Personally, I know for my work F2.8 is an advantage, both for astro (night) and daytime.
4. The Nikon 14-24 has basically no Coma aberration wide open, and that is a rare occurrence on a wide. Again great for night work as coma is very hard to correct in post
As to the other lenses mentioned, I don't think that there is enough difference that it really matters in most cases. I recently was able to shoot the new 70-200 F4 on a 7D MKII and yes it's a very good lens. I have not been able to shoot the newer F2.8 version. Mine old one was not so good, but it was gen 1 and I know that Canon has long passed it in QA.
Oh, glad to sit this one out.
BTW, the only Canon lenses I miss, are the 17 TS-E and 24 TS-EII, nothing in the Nikon line up can come close to either of them. and...... the 15mm fisheye F2.8 that was a very nice lens.
Paul
-
I would hope the new 11-24 is better or a least as good as the 8 or so year old 14-24 from Nikon.
If it's anything like the 24-70 II it will in all likelihood be better.
From my landscape/night scape perspective I look at this way:
1. At a price point of over 3K, this lens will not be common one in the field.
2. It shares the same fixed Tulip shade as the Nikon and thus will be a nightmare to filter (yes, filters are still important, and possibly more important on wide than anywhere else)
3. It's an F4 lens as many of the newer Canon lenses seem to be, which is interesting. Personally, I know for my work F2.8 is an advantage, both for astro (night) and daytime.
4. The Nikon 14-24 has basically no Coma aberration wide open, and that is a rare occurrence on a wide. Again great for night work as coma is very hard to correct in post.
I would say you're in the minority using f/2.8 on a wide-angle lens. Most f/2.8 lenses perform at their worst at that aperture anyway, and generally perform at their stopped down between f/4 and f/8 anyway. So, aside from offering wider coverage, I would say starting off at f/4 (a) saves the lens the unnecessary added weight for a generally superfluous aperture for wide-angle, and (b) starts right out at a still decently fast, and much more desirable aperture.
As to the other lenses mentioned, I don't think that there is enough difference that it really matters in most cases. I recently was able to shoot the new 70-200 F4 on a 7D MKII and yes it's a very good lens. I have not been able to shoot the newer F2.8 version. Mine old one was not so good, but it was gen 1 and I know that Canon has long passed it in QA.
The 70-200 f/4 isn't what I was referring to, I was referring to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, where the f/2.8 means something as you're often isolating subjects and seeking a background bokeh.
With Canon, there is the 24-70 II, which is superior, the 70-200 II which is superior, the 200-400 +1.4 ext which is superior.
And now there is going to be the 11-24 which, they say, is going to be "unrivaled" in image quality. Last time they made such a statement it was about the 200-400, which is an amazing lens.
Oh, glad to sit this one out.
BTW, the only Canon lenses I miss, are the 17 TS-E and 24 TS-EII, nothing in the Nikon line up can come close to either of them. and...... the 15mm fisheye F2.8 that was a very nice lens.
Paul
I personally don't care about tilt-shift lenses, but you're right those who do prefer the Canon.
I was actually thinking about getting the Nikon 14-24 by April, and get the adapter, because I just didn't want a 16-35mm lens ... so I am very glad to see that Canon has yet another new and better lens out in the offing (assuming the rumors are true).
I am personally glad to sit out and pass on all these new "almost" bodies and watch the lens lineup continue to build up ... and slowly just keep accumulating fantastic lenses overtop my existing DSLR ... until Canon comes out with the right camera (better DR + 4K) to go behind these great lenses.
I think think having the most advantageous lens lineup is more important myself, as bodies change/develop a helluva lot faster than lenses.
Jack
-
All things within reason.
To me the Canon 200-400 with the built in TC is outside of reason. It may be the best but only a very few photographers will be able to justify it and or afford it.
As for needs for F 2.8 I should have been a bit more detailed. The requirement of F2.8 is more for night photography needs. Here the 14-24 is a great performer. It's only issue is flare due to the outer element. I am sure the new Canon will share in this issue to some degree as it also had a large curved outer element.
Overall the 14-24 has been a great lens for my work. Hopefully the new 11-24 will give Canon shooters the same level of performance.
Paul
-
All things within reason.
To me the Canon 200-400 with the built in TC is outside of reason. It may be the best but only a very few photographers will be able to justify it and or afford it.
Good point. With the new 100-400 II, with such good marks across the board, I wonder if Canon shot itself in the foot by making this, because I am having a tough time "remaining focused" on the 200-400, with an awfully-good 100-400 ... which itself also replaces virtually any need for the 70-200.
I have been doing some serious chin-rubbing on just getting the 100-400 II and saving myself the need for those two other lenses.
As for needs for F 2.8 I should have been a bit more detailed. The requirement of F2.8 is more for night photography needs. Here the 14-24 is a great performer. It's only issue is flare due to the outer element. I am sure the new Canon will share in this issue to some degree as it also had a large curved outer element.
Sounds reasonable and correct.
Overall the 14-24 has been a great lens for my work. Hopefully the new 11-24 will give Canon shooters the same level of performance.
Paul
I am sure both are true. As I said, I am looking to invest in a new system come this spring, and I was prepared to get the Nikon 14-24 w/ adapter rather than buy the 16-35 f/4, because I want ultra-wide to take in as much of the landscape/habitat in certain photographs I take. I am not sure where you saw the proposed 11-24 as being $3,000, because if it is I still might get the Nikon :D
Jack
-
The 3K was an estimate from Canon rumors. Hopefully it will come in a bit lower.
http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/01/new-rebel-ef-11-24-f4l-usm-coming-shortly-cr3/ (http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/01/new-rebel-ef-11-24-f4l-usm-coming-shortly-cr3/)
Price will hit next week I guess.
Paul
-
I would say you're in the minority using f/2.8 on a wide-angle lens. Most f/2.8 lenses perform at their worst at that aperture anyway, and generally perform at their stopped down between f/4 and f/8 anyway. So, aside from offering wider coverage, I would say starting off at f/4 (a) saves the lens the unnecessary added weight for a generally superfluous aperture for wide-angle, and (b) starts right out at a still decently fast, and much more desirable aperture.
Considering the DOF you obtain at such short focal length, f/2.8-f/4 is very useful on a super-wide, especially for night and other low light situations. I have the 16-35mm f/4 VR and it is a trade off. When on a tripod I'm usually well into the aperture range, but handheld I traded 1 stop of aperture for 3 stops of VR. While also losing some sharpness and distortion control, but gaining some ease of use. At the excellent $700 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 and Nikon has 3 great options in the wide angle zoom arena.
With Canon, there is the 24-70 II, which is superior, the 70-200 II which is superior, the 200-400 +1.4 ext which is superior. And now there is going to be the 11-24 which, they say, is going to be "unrivaled" in image quality. Last time they made such a statement it was about the 200-400, which is an amazing lens.
Each maker has particular lenses that are standout performers. It's interesting though, that the lenses you are discussing are ones in which Nikon created the standard by which others have been judged. The 24-70mm f/2.8 had no peer at it's release and soft corners f/2.8-4.0 (still sharper in the center) and CA issues aside it is still a stellar performer. The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is still the standard (though not quite as good, IMHO as the 3rd Gen 80-200mm f/2.8 that Nikon still sells). The AIS Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 ED was an excellent performer, but sold less than 500 copies. But when Art Wolfe got a good deal on one and used it to make numerous award winning images, the used marked went wild causing Nikon to bring it back in 2003 as an AF-S VR lens. Which brings us to the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 which is the current standard and the one even you are judging the new Canon lens against.
To me, if these are the lenses a person covets, then it seems they should have been shooting Nikon the last 8 years. :P
-
The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is still the standard.
Contrary to a widespread belief, the current Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is as good/better than its Canon equivalent in most of its usage envelope but it has one flaw that some people consider major. This flaw is the amount of focus breathing at close shooting distances that reduce its actual focal length at the 200mm setting to around 140mm on Full Frame bodies. So if you use the lens to shoot many close up portraits or equivalent, then the Canon is a better option because you have more magnification. For pretty much everything else they are so close in real world application that it doesn't matter.
The Canon 24-70 f2.8 II is a gem optically and is clearly superior to its Nikon counterpart in corners (very close in the centre of the frame), but the lack of stabilisation is a deal killer for me. This is the very reason why I sold my Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and I would personally never invest in such a lens again with stabilisation. Guys shooting events and weddings probably see this as less relevant.
This recent Nikon patent for a 24-70 f2.8 VR PF could be interesting though: http://nikonrumors.com/2015/02/03/some-interesting-nikon-patents-including-a-nikkor-24-70mm-f2-8-pf-vr-lens.aspx/#more-87384
I am sure that the new 11-24 f4 will be the best wide optically. Heck it comes 8 years later and is a less ambitious design with its f4 maximum aperture. I personally find 14mm too wide already for most non panoramic images, so I am not too sure what the 11-14 mm brings to the picture, but it may come handy in some cases. In fact I have been wondering for months whether I shouldn't sell the 14-24mm f2.8 since, albeit it's out of this world good optically, I shoot less than 50 images a year with it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Considering the DOF you obtain at such short focal length, f/2.8-f/4 is very useful on a super-wide, especially for night and other low light situations. I have the 16-35mm f/4 VR and it is a trade off. When on a tripod I'm usually well into the aperture range, but handheld I traded 1 stop of aperture for 3 stops of VR. While also losing some sharpness and distortion control, but gaining some ease of use. At the excellent $700 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 and Nikon has 3 great options in the wide angle zoom arena.
I can see how that would make sense.
Each maker has particular lenses that are standout performers. It's interesting though, that the lenses you are discussing are ones in which Nikon created the standard by which others have been judged. The 24-70mm f/2.8 had no peer at it's release and soft corners f/2.8-4.0 (still sharper in the center) and CA issues aside it is still a stellar performer. The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is still the standard (though not quite as good, IMHO as the 3rd Gen 80-200mm f/2.8 that Nikon still sells). The AIS Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 ED was an excellent performer, but sold less than 500 copies. But when Art Wolfe got a good deal on one and used it to make numerous award winning images, the used marked went wild causing Nikon to bring it back in 2003 as an AF-S VR lens. Which brings us to the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 which is the current standard and the one even you are judging the new Canon lens against.
Had ... was ... used to be ... etc. ... I was talking about today :P
The Nikon's 24-70 is sweet also, true, but I am not sure it is better than the Canon version. I am pretty sure most charts say No. The pricepoint is easier to swallow though. I also don't think the Nikon 70-200 II (http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/511-nikkorafs7020028vr2ff?start=2) is quite as sweet as Canon's 70-200 II (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/510-canon_70200_2is28?start=2) ... and I definitely know the old Nikon 200-400 cannot compare to the newer Canon 200-400 + ext.
Further, for those people who don't want to spend $6000 on a Nikkor 200-400, or $12,000 on a Canon 200-400 +ext ... the good news is Canon now has a quite awesome 100-400 II (http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896-canon100400f4556is2?start=2) for only 2K, with some pretty nifty stats.
For a nature photographer looking to cover the 100-400 mm range, with a pro-level (not 3rd party) zoom, this new 100-400 is pretty nice. That said, I think Art Wolfe did what most Canon shooters did, take advantage of the fact he could select one or two of Nikon's then-better lenses, and put them on his Canon, something which Nikon shooters can't do in the reverse ...
To me, if these are the lenses a person covets, then it seems they should have been shooting Nikon the last 8 years. :P
LOL, no, they should do what Art Wolfe did, and that is enjoy their ergonomically-superior Canon cameras, and just get the one or two of Nikon's superior lenses.
The thing about it is, those "few better" Nikon lenses are becoming fewer and fewer ... for whatever reason, they never placed importance on the tilt-shift race, they've been edged-out almost completely in the zoom race, and pretty much their only stronghold was the 14-24, which front-running seems like is about to lost too.
As someone who is just about to "reinvest" in a whole new system, camera-wise I am going to sit tight, until I see a truly decent sensor and 4K, and IMO it is only a matter of time before Canon's sensor, and 4K video offerings, come forth ... same as they pioneered the the DSLR ... and same as they pioneered HD video production in-camera also. The way I am seeing things, when Canon does catch-up sensor-wise, they will already have pretty much all the brand new, upgraded lenses to put in front of that camera. What's more, what few (if any) lenses they don't have, can be adapted to their camera with a $30 adapter ... which Nikon users will not be able to do in the reverse.
It seems to me that it will be much easier for Canon to finally drop a new sensor into their already ergonomically/functionally-superior cameras ... than it will be for any other camera manufacturer to reinvent/create an entire lens line-up to match Canon's (Nikon perhaps not so much, but the other companies definitely).
That's the way I see what's happening anyway.
Cheers,
Jack
-
The way Nikon did things always made more sense to me: 14-24, then 24-70, then 70-200. It was a natural range progression that just made sense.
Canon did things bass-ackwards IMO by having a 16-35 (???), then 24-70, then 70-200. Never understood why Canon had a 16-35 rather than a 14-24 (the OCD in me couldn't accept it).
Because 16-35mm is a far, far more useful zoom range that 11/12-24mm. The fact that it doesn't dovetail exactly with other lenses is of zero relevance to photography. Having to constantly swap between an 12-24 and a 24-70 lens would be extremely annoying and very disruptive to my workflow as I shoot 20-35mm most of the time. And I doubt I'm that rare in using that zoom range.
Shooting wider than 16mm, even for me as a big lover of wideangle photography is not exactly an everyday occurrence. It's getting quite specialist.
-
I would say you're in the minority using f/2.8 on a wide-angle lens. Most f/2.8 lenses perform at their worst at that aperture anyway, and generally perform at their stopped down between f/4 and f/8 anyway. So, aside from offering wider coverage, I would say starting off at f/4 (a) saves the lens the unnecessary added weight for a generally superfluous aperture for wide-angle, and (b) starts right out at a still decently fast, and much more desirable aperture.
A faster aperture makes for a brighter viewfinder, easier focusing and better subject isolation, so even if shooting at f4 or slower it still can be useful. Though I'm considering the f4 16-35mm as it has stabilisation and is supposedly a much better lens than the f2.8 version. Though, given the choice I'd prefer f2.8 anyday. In fact an f2 20-30mm would be my dream lens.
I think think having the most advantageous lens lineup is more important myself, as bodies change/develop a helluva lot faster than lenses.
Definitely, buy a system based on the lens you want to use. Some of my lenses have been on 4 generations of camera bodies.
-
Contrary to a widespread belief, the current Nikon 70-200 f2.8 is as good/better than its Canon equivalent in most of its usage envelope but it has one flaw that some people consider major. This flaw is the amount of focus breathing at close shooting distances that reduce its actual focal length at the 200mm setting to around 140mm on Full Frame bodies. So if you use the lens to shoot many close up portraits or equivalent, then the Canon is a better option because you have more magnification. For pretty much everything else they are so close in real world application that it doesn't matter.
A photographer whose name I forget offhand recently did a video explaining why he used Canon gear over Nikon gear. The Nikon lens line up was the reason, he really loved the nikon bodies but the seriously poor focus breathing of the 70-200 Nikon lens was a major part of choosing Canon. Naturally the video upset a lot of fanbois despite his repeatedly saying 'this is what works best for me and and my work, but it may not for you', many people stupidly took it as partisan Nikon bashing.
-
I came in to read about the Canon 11-24L and thought I entered a fanboy pissing contest on dpreview.
-
Because 16-35mm is a far, far more useful zoom range that 11/12-24mm. The fact that it doesn't dovetail exactly with other lenses is of zero relevance to photography. Having to constantly swap between an 12-24 and a 24-70 lens would be extremely annoying and very disruptive to my workflow as I shoot 20-35mm most of the time. And I doubt I'm that rare in using that zoom range.
Shooting wider than 16mm, even for me as a big lover of wideangle photography is not exactly an everyday occurrence. It's getting quite specialist.
Well, there are certain instances with what I am doing where I want to take in as much of the scenery/environment as possible, without having to stitch a bunch of photos together.
Not necessarily for "art," but just to capture the whole environment/habitat where I happened to have obtain a particular specimen.
I don't want an 8mm distorted fisheye, either, just as "much" of the habitat as a lens will allow me to take in with no intentional distortion.
-
The Canon 24-70 f2.8 II is a gem optically and is clearly superior to its Nikon counterpart in corners (very close in the centre of the frame), but the lack of stabilisation is a deal killer for me. This is the very reason why I sold my Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and I would personally never invest in such a lens again with stabilisation. Guys shooting events and weddings probably see this as less relevant.
I had the original 24-70 and I actually preferred the lack of IS because I wasn't so much interested in zeroing in on moving subjects, so much as using it for the image quality. The 24-105 had IS but wasn't quite as nice optically.
I am sure that the new 11-24 f4 will be the best wide optically. Heck it comes 8 years later and is a less ambitious design with its f4 maximum aperture. I personally find 14mm too wide already for most non panoramic images, so I am not too sure what the 11-14 mm brings to the picture, but it may come handy in some cases. In fact I have been wondering for months whether I shouldn't sell the 14-24mm f2.8 since, albeit it's out of this world good optically, I shoot less than 50 images a year with it.
Cheers,
Bernard
What I find interesting is that, typically, ultra-wides are their worst at largest aperture and widest f/stop. Ultra-wides usually get better around f/4 and after you move away from their widest-angle a bit. I don't think it's "less ambitious" of Canon, I think it is strategically-intelligent. By omitting the f/2.8 (which only makes the lens heavier, is not the best f/stop optically, and is not the usual choice for landscape anyway), Canon is omitting 90% of the complaints of the that Nikon's venerated 14-24 received ... everyone complained about the weight.
In the APS-C Canon 10-24, which I had also, 10 mm (effectively 16 mm on APS-C) had some pretty noticeable distortion at its widest point, but if I decreased the widest setting down to 14 mm the distortion decreased dramatically. Now let's say this same fact is true of the Canon: namely, the greatest distortion is going to be at 11mm, but by 14 mm the field curvature gets better ... since it is a FF lens, it will have, not just an operationally wider range, but a significant distortion-free range. (Of course, this is just thinking out loud, what it actually proves to be remains to be seen.)
Therefore, rather than "less ambitious," I would say Canon's design is more ambitious and more thoughtful as to the realities of the limitations of ultra-wide: get rid of the negative downside of weight, and extend the usable range instead, while operating within what is generally considered the optimal f/stop range.
Jack
-
What i read ( rumours) is that it is F4 and Weight = 1180g ???
That is a LOT for an F4 lens...
It simply must be a very good lens optically if the other 50MP rumour is true... and considering the Nikkor 14-24mm
I would not be suprised if the only problem of this lens is... lens flare ( like with the Nikkor)
So many good lenses to choose from nowadays ; we may call ourselves lucky :)
-
What i read ( rumours) is that it is F4 and Weight = 1180g ???
That is a LOT for an F4 lens...
We just have to get used with that. Making retrofocus lenses look sharp at 50 megapixels takes a lot of glass... I think we're going to see more heavy lenses in the future :-)
-
Creampuffs! My two favorite "specialty" lenses are 1.1 to 1.25 kilograms each, the 400 f/5.6L and the macro 180 f/3.5L. On the other hand, if you are hiking up some serious elevation, a kilo is a BFD! And no, you don't want to know how heavy the 11-24 would be if it had been designed as an f/2.8 lens! At that point, you hire a llama or other beast of burden.
-
For those who do night shooting and want coma-less lenses, the $319.00 Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is decent at f/2.8. The Zeiss Distagon 21 f/2.8 is very sharp at f/2.8, and is my go-to astrolandscape lens. I imagine the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 would be awesome, but I haven't seen any astrophotography done with that specialist lens.
-
For those who do night shooting and want coma-less lenses, the $319.00 Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is decent at f/2.8. The Zeiss Distagon 21 f/2.8 is very sharp at f/2.8, and is my go-to astrolandscape lens. I imagine the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 would be awesome, but I haven't seen any astrophotography done with that specialist lens.
Zeiss 15 (not astro, but night photography):
http://blog.parrikar.com/2012/11/23/phantom-of-the-aurora/
-
Zeiss 15 (not astro, but night photography):
http://blog.parrikar.com/2012/11/23/phantom-of-the-aurora/
Beautiful images Rajan ! and well done.
Also you can see it is a good lens indeed ( and a pricey one)
-
For those who do night shooting and want coma-less lenses, the $319.00 Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is decent at f/2.8. The Zeiss Distagon 21 f/2.8 is very sharp at f/2.8, and is my go-to astrolandscape lens. I imagine the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 would be awesome, but I haven't seen any astrophotography done with that specialist lens.
Nancy
Do you see a lot of vignetting with your Zeiss 21 wide open? I use the 18mm 3.5 and every time I shoot it, I am always amazed at how bad it vignettes wide open F3.5 to F5. LR and C1 can correct for it most times, but the 14-24 at F2.8 has almost no vignetting, and literally no coma. So far I have not seen any coma in the 18mm, but it's really not fast enough for just star work/milky way.
BTW, I agree the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower 14mm is very good has very little coma, but it's a real pain to focus, especially at night. But it also seems to have less flare issues than my 14-24, which at night will be as big a problem (I shoot with the moon) as in daytime. Same horrible destructive magenta flare, that you really have to block or the stack series will either be ruined or it will take a lot more time as you have to pull out the flare from each shot. Thank goodness for Flare Buster!
Paul
-
Zeiss 15 (not astro, but night photography):
http://blog.parrikar.com/2012/11/23/phantom-of-the-aurora/
Wow! Those photographs stopped me dead in my tracks, great job!
-
I've never seen a rectilinear 11mm lens. That should be very interesting. You'd have to watch out for your own feet.
-
WOW, Rajan! Kudos to you and your very busy light-painting friend.
Paul2660, there is a modest amount of vignetting wide open on the Zeiss 21 f/2.8 - one to one and a half stops? Easily corrected in post via Adobe's own profiles. You may or may not think 1.5 stops is modest. The Samyang 14 f/2.8 has 3 to 3.5 stop vignetting in FF corners. I use Thomas Berndt's user-generated profile that plugs into Adobe Lr or ACR - it works and I don't feel like DIY profiling. Yes, the 14mm is a PITA to focus on a star even on live view 10x magnification at ISO 25.6K. Flare buster? I use my hat brim as the always-available flag.
-
ePHOTOzine tried the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens, includes Sample Photos (they note - "images were shot on a pre-production Canon EOS 5DS beta sample, and final image quality may vary. Images have been resized"):
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-11-24mm-f-4l-usm-lens-sample-photos-26926
-
I love the fact that Canon has put a rear gel holder on this lens. I love my Nikon 14-24, but curse Nikon for failing to provide a rear gel holder. The 14 f/2.8 had one, why not the zoom?!
-
ePHOTOzine tried the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens, includes Sample Photos (they note - "images were shot on a pre-production Canon EOS 5DS beta sample, and final image quality may vary. Images have been resized"):
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-11-24mm-f-4l-usm-lens-sample-photos-26926
I'm impressed with how straight the straight lines are. The corners look quite clean as well.
I think we've discovered that one secret to making the sharp UWA is to make a highly outsized image circle. That might be the case here as well. I'm going to speculate that this lens might be a good candidate for a tilt-shift mount (such as the Hartblei) on a mirrorless camera.
-
FWIW, I have the Nikon 14-24, but almost never use it and in hindsight might have been better off with something lighter in the 16-35 range.
If I switched to Canon tomorrow, I would probably just go with the 24-70 for all zoom stuff and stick with primes for everything else as I can see the 50mp sensor bing fairly taxing on lenses.
-
I've never seen a rectilinear 11mm lens. That should be very interesting. You'd have to watch out for your own feet.
The TS-E 17L is actually a wider lens. Just that it spreads its image over a wider image circle, so you can't see all of it in a single 35mm frame.
Put it in front of a MF back or stitch a few shifted frames together and you can see how wide this lens really is - equivalent to 10.2mm on a single 35mm frame when you shift to each extreme and stitch the resulting frames together.
-
The TS-E 17L is actually a wider lens. Just that it spreads its image over a wider image circle, so you can't see all of it in a single 35mm frame.
Put it in front of a MF back or stitch a few shifted frames together and you can see how wide this lens really is - equivalent to 10.2mm on a single 35mm frame when you shift to each extreme and stitch the resulting frames together.
So this doesn't actually mean the lens is "wider". It's still 17mm all day long. You are right that TS/E and PC-E lenses have always had a wider image circle to accommodate shifts and tilts. It is a relatively new practice however to put these designs into non-T/S lenses as a way to maximize their performance on the 35mm frame.
It doesn't exactly make for a lightweight and compact lens, but it does make for optical performance.
-
So this doesn't actually mean the lens is "wider". It's still 17mm all day long.
Yes it does.
Focal length isn't the same as width. A lens is as 'wide' as the angle of view of its image circle subtends, whatever its focal length may be.
Or is a 4-40mm zoom lens used on a point-and-shoot wider than the 11-24L, and a 35L prime wider than a 47mm Super Angulon lens used on 617-format film bodies?
-
Yes, but width is always fixed relative to the size of the recording medium, which is constant here. No matter how you shift and tilt a 17mm T/S on a 35mm sensor, the width will be the same. You haven't said anything about changing the recording medium.
I understand what you're trying to say. The image circle is bigger. I think that's all that needs to be said.
-
Because 16-35mm is a far, far more useful zoom range that 11/12-24mm. The fact that it doesn't dovetail exactly with other lenses is of zero relevance to photography.
I agree. While it is nice to have complementing focal ranges, and one could assume narrower ranges to have more uniform quality, there are practical benefits to have overlap near/around often used focal lengths. A 16-35mm range covers many practical shooting scenarios. The 11-24mm range is typically tailored to the needs of those who require those wide angles of view, or seek to exploit the seemingly distorted view (comes from viewing from too far away rather than real distortion), thus emphasizing foreground features that are close to the camera.
Besides, the difference between 11mm and 14mm focal length is huge(!), it changes the horizontal FOV from 104 to 117 degrees (that's 32.6 metres width instead of 25.61 metres or 27.3% more width at 10 metres distance). Even the difference between 11mm and 12mm gives a 9.1% wider FOV at a given distance. It is also a lot more challenging to achieve good image quality for shorter (e.g. 14 instead of 16mm) focal lengths, and lenses become much larger/heavier/expensive.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I agree. While it is nice to have complementing focal ranges, and one could assume narrower ranges to have more uniform quality, there are practical benefits to have overlap near/around often used focal lengths. A 16-35mm range covers many practical shooting scenarios. The 11-24mm range is typically tailored to the needs of those who require those wide angles of view, or seek to exploit the seemingly distorted view (comes from viewing from too far away rather than real distortion), thus emphasizing foreground features that are close to the camera.
Besides, the difference between 11mm and 14mm focal length is huge(!), it changes the horizontal FOV from 104 to 117 degrees (that's 32.6 metres width instead of 25.61 metres or 27.3% more width at 10 metres distance). Even the difference between 11mm and 12mm gives a 9.1% wider FOV at a given distance. It is also a lot more challenging to achieve good image quality for shorter (e.g. 14 instead of 16mm) focal lengths, and lenses become much larger/heavier/expensive.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart....
B&H specs for the 11-24 show 126°5' @ 11mm. The Sigma 12-24 is 122° @ 12mm
John
-
Bart....
B&H specs for the 11-24 show 126*5' @ 11mm. The Sigma 12-24 is 122* @ 12mm
Hi John,
Well, maybe it's not exactly 11 mm (which should produce an angle of view of h:117° × v:94.9°, d:126° on a 36x24mm sensor), or B&H reports diagonal FOV.
Cheers,
Bart