Posted by David Clapp on November 28, 2008 at 1:03 PM
http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/nikon1424.php
<p>
If any of you are interested here is a full in-depth look at using the Nikon 14-24 on my 1DsIII. Many people have
a lot of questions regarding the 16-9.net adapter, the way it works, how versatile it is in the field etc so I
have written an article about how to use this lens, not a comparisons article, but one with considerations and
questions answered that may or may not be relevant to you. No graphs and charts, there are many of these already
on other sites.
<p>
Any comments about the review and these pictures are always gratefully received.
<p>
David Clapp<br>
Posted by Rob Howard on November 28, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Hi David,
Interesting read, thanks for doing it and posting it. Landscapes are my weak point, so any info/tips are more than welcome.
Also the image I bought is now mounted and framed and looks stunning on my wall, Thanks
Regards
Rob
Posted by David Clapp on November 28, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Great to read Rob, I am glad you like it...
Posted by John Varley on November 29, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Very interesting read David. John
Posted by John Lee on November 30, 2008 at 6:59 AM
David
Very interesting article. I am particularly interested in the lack of barrel distortion. Is there any distortion, on the edge of the frame, of straight edges (eg walls / brickwork) at the 14mm end of this lens. My present lens the canon 16-35 produces images akin to a beach ball, especially obvious when I have to put the edge of a room close to the side of the frame. Also the corner sharpness that you mention is interesting. At 16mm the canon is decidedly wooly at f8 and not wonderful at f11.
John Lee
Posted by David Clapp on November 30, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Hello John, I am yet to do a proper brick wall test but the initial real world findings seem to suggest it's literally perfectly rectilinear in the 16-21mm area, more likely 18-21. All I can say is all my landscapes have required no correction for horizons at all in this area, so its looking very likely.
The 17-40 I own has to be backed up by PTLens to get the best results from it, which I am happy with between f11 and f16 at most focal lengths, but like yours the wider you shoot the worse it gets. Its almost a one aperture lens, f16, but diffraction has set in by that point and the image is degrading, which was the whole reason for this experiment. I am totally sold, others wont be due to its querky working method, but its a compromise I am happy to take.
The Nikon is no word of a lie the sharpest WA lens I have shot with. Edge to edge at f3.5-f4 is no exaggeration. I am being lent a 21mm Zeiss this week so a report of just how they compare will be on the website in the next couple of weeks.
Posted by Elliott Neep on December 1, 2008 at 5:02 AM
Hi David,
Through all your extensive lens trials, could you could recommend the single best lens for a full-frame Canon DSLR? I loved the Nikon report, but I know the "querky working method" just won't work for me in the long term. Much appreciated!
Discussion
6 replies<p>
If any of you are interested here is a full in-depth look at using the Nikon 14-24 on my 1DsIII. Many people have
a lot of questions regarding the 16-9.net adapter, the way it works, how versatile it is in the field etc so I
have written an article about how to use this lens, not a comparisons article, but one with considerations and
questions answered that may or may not be relevant to you. No graphs and charts, there are many of these already
on other sites.
<p>
Any comments about the review and these pictures are always gratefully received.
<p>
David Clapp<br>
Interesting read, thanks for doing it and posting it. Landscapes are my weak point, so any info/tips are more than welcome.
Also the image I bought is now mounted and framed and looks stunning on my wall, Thanks
Regards
Rob
Very interesting article. I am particularly interested in the lack of barrel distortion. Is there any distortion, on the edge of the frame, of straight edges (eg walls / brickwork) at the 14mm end of this lens. My present lens the canon 16-35 produces images akin to a beach ball, especially obvious when I have to put the edge of a room close to the side of the frame. Also the corner sharpness that you mention is interesting. At 16mm the canon is decidedly wooly at f8 and not wonderful at f11.
John Lee
The 17-40 I own has to be backed up by PTLens to get the best results from it, which I am happy with between f11 and f16 at most focal lengths, but like yours the wider you shoot the worse it gets. Its almost a one aperture lens, f16, but diffraction has set in by that point and the image is degrading, which was the whole reason for this experiment. I am totally sold, others wont be due to its querky working method, but its a compromise I am happy to take.
The Nikon is no word of a lie the sharpest WA lens I have shot with. Edge to edge at f3.5-f4 is no exaggeration. I am being lent a 21mm Zeiss this week so a report of just how they compare will be on the website in the next couple of weeks.
Through all your extensive lens trials, could you could recommend the single best lens for a full-frame Canon DSLR? I loved the Nikon report, but I know the "querky working method" just won't work for me in the long term. Much appreciated!