Quote:
Originally Posted by sejanus
Nikon have the wide & mid range zoom very firmly over Canon. The Nikon 14-24 and 24-70 are significantly better than the Canon equivalents.
However this is being pretty picky. It doesn't mean the Canon ones are bad. I think if you want to use the nikon lenses then get a nikon body, sure you can use adapters but you lose your metering last time I looked. This isn't a big deal for landscapes or astro but personally I wouldn't.
Sticking on Canon mount, if you want to use a zoom the Canon 16-35 is very good but only when stopped down a couple of stops. It is poor until about 5.6
Getting more serious, the Canon 24/1.4 is a cracker. Also the 35/1.4 as well - this is one of Canons best, if you took a list of all their lenses the 35 would be in the top 3. The Canon mount Zeiss 21mm is even better than all of them for landscapes in my experience but you lose autofocus - again not a big deal.
This is just my thoughts on using them for land stuff. Haven't used them for astro yet, won't be long though.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan
Spot on  .
Good tip - a Zeiss 21mm, I'll add it to the list to check.
Greg.
I believe large format lenses offer the best price/performance ratio for astrophotography (6x9 - Hasselblatt, Mamiya or Zenit 80 or similar), without compromising the resolution on smaller sensors, including "full frame" 24x35mm. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by luigi
I think the Nikon 14-24 and the Zeiss 21mm ZE Distagon are the top of the crop in terms of WA lenses on a FF body.
The Canon 14mm F2.8L II and the 24mm F1.4II and the TSE 24mm are also excellent the last one not so hot for astro due to the slower aperture.
I'd also consider the old CZJ Flektogon 20mm F2.8 and the Zuiko 24mm F2.8 lens.
My personal experience is that lens variation from copy to copy can be even bigger than the difference from one brand to the other. A 17-40 F4L can be worst or better than a 16-35 F2.8L depending on which copy you get. So I'd strongly suggest you to try try and try.
One thing I like about the Nikon 14-24 , the CZJ and the Zuiko is that the manual aperture control gives you instant DOF preview in live-view that's nice in terrestrial landscapes.
|
A few more names of lens to check out. Thanks very much for this hard to find info.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbeal
Greg,
I reckon they are great, certainly cost effective. What I really liked though was the back focus that exists by their very nature. With a "35mm designed lens" you have about 45mm give or take. Try fitting a CFW etc in there. Hard, or impossible.
Medium format however has heaps of space, that sealed it for me. Try some of the Hasselblad lenses if your pocket allows. In my case the 55/4, and the 200/4 both work as good as I can.
Gary
|
The 55/4 and 200/4 you refer to are the Pentax 67's? Do you get a lot of chromatic aberration?
Greg.