Feedback on large apeture, wide angle lens

[jeffryscott]

more on lenses

That's interesting Nathan, I've not heard too much about the 100 2.8 - just a few reviews that raved about it. One thing I've seen with Canon, though, is it seems certain lenses don't match up with certain bodies well: for example my 20d the 100 may look fabulous on and your 20d my 17-40 may not. People complain a lot in some forums (dpreview) about having to have their camera and lenses calibrated by Canon because they can't get sharp pics.

People at work (newspaper) have the 16-35 and some of them aren't that impressed by it. One guy much prefers his 10-22 that he bought for himself. Again, it could be that magical camera/lens combo that gets it just right.

Justin, I'm interested in why you'd go back to Nikon? Everybody and their mother in the newspaper industry has been running away from Nikon and I'd love to hear why you went back?

Scott, some food for thought about the one stop difference - with a wide angle, that one stop difference isn't real dramatic. You probably wouldn't notice a big difference, whearas at the 200mm range, the stop can be a big difference.

 

[JMyerz]

Jeffery,

First it was ergonomics, I had been shooting nikon for years and simply could not adapt to the canon ways. I missed shots because I would go for something that was not there and it was very frustrating.

2nd, nikon glass IMHO is sharper and has a more pleasing contrast to it.

3rd, durability while nikon does have the most MP currently it does have a fantastic image prcesssor, AF system, an unbeatable strobe system and the durability of a toyota.

4th I got wind of this littel guy before it was announced and it looks to be a very nice camera at only $1699.

Finally while canon does seem to push the technology with their cameras, they don't get things 100% right before they release their cameras. Nikon while slower has a much higher QC.

Of course, this is just my opinion

 

[jeffryscott]

Jeffery,

First it was ergonomics, I had been shooting nikon for years and simply could not adapt to the canon ways. I missed shots because I would go for something that was not there and it was very frustrating.

2nd, nikon glass IMHO is sharper and has a more pleasing contrast to it.

3rd, durability while nikon does have the most MP currently it does have a fantastic image prcesssor, AF system, an unbeatable strobe system and the durability of a toyota.

4th I got wind of this littel guy before it was announced and it looks to be a very nice camera at only $1699.

Finally while canon does seem to push the technology with their cameras, they don't get things 100% right before they release their cameras. Nikon while slower has a much higher QC.

Of course, this is just my opinion

Interesting experience of Nikon versus Canon. Mine is completely different (thus a good reason why there are several systems out there). The D200 looks very nice, if it is anything like the F100 is should be a great camera. I, however, have always felt Nikon's AF is way, way behind Canons and my experience with their quality control is extremely negative, that and their professional repair service - things routinely came back either not fixed or with more problems. I have had Nikon's (cameras and lenses) just fall apart since the F4.

I have also preferred Canon's glass, much more akin to Leica and Contax in my opinion.

It's a matter of what you are used to - both systems have pluses and negatives.

My personal favorite, which I just sold because we went all Canon at work, is the Olympus E1. While it is a bit slower, it has dust-shaker technology so no dust on the CCD, photos look more like Kodachrome than any digital I've seen, body sealed against water and dust like high-end Nikon's and Canon's and very affordable. The glass is outstanding. And the ergonomics were fantastic. If I was independently wealthy I'd have kept the system and bought the 300 2.8 and 150 2 plus some of the new superfast zooms they just introduced. Alas, I sold it for my Canon, which I'm extremely happy with but I don't think the build quality of the 20d is as good as the E1.

 

[articulate]

I'm bringing this one back to the top to ask this: Anyone have some sample images you can share here? Samples of these wide angle lenses at work on thier digital camera body counterparts? I'd love that.

I like my wide angle lens so much I wish she were wider - 19mm (but on a traditional film SLR) and I'd rather be at 14mm or so.

So I want to see some examples if anyone has some to share...:wavey:

Later,
Mark

 

[Mike S]

Scott

I am less familiar with the Canon product line than the Nikon, but of the choices you listed I think the 24mm is the deal. This is about as wide as you can go without apparent distortion.

I have a 24mm f2 Nikon fixed focal length lens that is terrific, sharp, nice color, and it gets used more than any other single lens I have. I also have the 35-70 f2.8 which is pretty decent. These are all used on my F2 and F4 bodies.

I know digital is a different game, but beyond a Canon G3, all my stuff is film...

Mike

 

[Scott Brady]

Well, the decision came down to the following:

Canon 16-35 2.8L

Tamron 17-35 2.8-4

So I went to my favorite camera store Tempe Camera (where I dont mind spending a little more than the NY mail order places) and put them both through the paces. Obviously, the Canon is more stout unit, but clarity and lack of distortion was great with both. So, I went the route of being conservative, and added another Tamron to the bag. Now I have a 17-35, 28-300, 200-400 and 2x doubler. I am happy with the decision and $1,000 I saved...

Now I am all set for wide angle on my Morocco trip

 

[Mlachica]

Well, the decision came down to the following:

Canon 16-35 2.8L

Tamron 17-35 2.8-4

So I went to my favorite camera store Tempe Camera (where I dont mind spending a little more than the NY mail order places) and put them both through the paces. Obviously, the Canon is more stout unit, but clarity and lack of distortion was great with both. So, I went the route of being conservative, and added another Tamron to the bag. Now I have a 17-35, 28-300, 200-400 and 2x doubler. I am happy with the decision and $1,000 I saved...

Now I am all set for wide angle on my Morocco trip

Sweeeeeet, Congratulations, I can't wait to see you're results!

I love the range on my canon 17-40L. Here's one of my first pics with it from Inyo Nat'l forest, leaving Death Valley.
Click here cuz I don't know how to post pictures =)

I wish I had your 28-300 cha ching!

 

[Scott Brady]

Thanks , I am pretty happy, and it allowed me to get more memory (extreme III's) and a sun disc.

I also looked at the 17-40L, which would have been my purchase except for the need I had of shooting indoors (trade shows), where the 2.8 is important.

 

[bigreen505]

Wow, not sure how I missed this party.

If anyone is interested I have a Canon 17-35/2.8 L that I am selling, as well as probably a whole lot of other Canon gear. All is babied and immaculate. I think I'm going to bite the bullet and try Leica. Shoot me an e-mail if you are interested -- bill at green acres tech dot com (the part between @ and . is all one word).

 

[Mike S]

Scott

I have been shooting with a 24mm f2 Nikon lens (on the F2 and the F4) for years. It is the one lense that I wouldn't part with. This is about as wide as you can go without visible distortion, and sharp as a tack. Enjoy your new toy.

M