Nikon 14-24mm on Canon?

Messages
898
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been reading online about various possible wide angle-ish lenses for my Canon 7d. I have looked at various lenses (including the 10-22mm, 8-16mm etc) but none are ideal optically and the Canon 14mm prime is too expensive and inflexible for me.

The Nikon 14-24mm has an incredible reputation (and looking at sample pictures online, I can see why), but has anyone used one (MF only) on a Canon body - using something like this adapter?

If so, I'd love to know your views! (y)
 
What's wrong with the Canon 10-22?
 
pchidell said:
Nothing inherently wrong with it but I've heard that it has quite a bit of vignetting and isn't as sharp... But I'm open to all options - I'm just so torn!

It's very, very sharp. It's an L lens in optical quality and I get absolutely no Vignetting on mine at all.

Best UWA in a crop sensor IMO and completely pointless going for an adapted Nikon lens when you can have a Canon 10-22 straight out the box!
 
It's very, very sharp. It's an L lens in optical quality and I get absolutely no Vignetting on mine at all.

Best UWA in a crop sensor IMO and completely pointless going for an adapted Nikon lens when you can have a Canon 10-22 straight out the box!

It's good to hear another opinion, thanks! I'd read the review from the Digital Picture and it says there that it's "reasonably sharp" but shows "strong vignetting". But as I said, I'm not at all decided so I may still go with the 10-22mm.
 
Maybe a 14-24mm if you had a 5D MK II, but not a 7D. Go for the Canon 10-22mm.
 
Vignetting is something that can be measured and viewed on line, let Google be your friend.

I do agree with what you've read about the Canon 10-22mm and I sold mine because I thought that I could buy a better lens and I believe that I have, however every mm matters at the wide and although the Nikon has a stella reputation it starts at 14mm and there are lenses that go wider on APS-C and it might be worth going for more width despite having to accept a drop in overall quality.
 
The Nikon is incredible and I have seen them adapted to canon because there isn't a canon lens that comes close for image quality. BUT on a crop sensor I think it would be wasted, if you were on a full frame then it may be worth consideration. If I did a lot of UWA stuff I would buy Nikon for that lens alone.
 
14mm is not all the wide on a cropped body anyway, how about a 15-85 on the Canon which is supposed to be a cracking lens assuming you don't need a real wide angle lens?

And if you love the 14-24 that much what's wrong with a D700? :D
 
Think it was a D700 I tried it on. absolutely fantastic setup... that I can no way afford :)
 
The 14-24 only works properly on the nikon with the auto focus etc I know it fits a canon who don't even come close with this lens
 
14-24 is lovely, but on a crop Canon body with MF only? Thats a lot of spondoolies for that limitation...

Have a play with the Canon 10-22, I absolutely loved that lens on my Canon.
 
The performance of the Nikon 14-24 is amazing. Here is a photo taken at Tesco. The lens was at f10 not its sharpest aperture and focused on the £7.99 sign about 5m away on the LHS. The crop is a direct crop from the LH lower corner of the original image. This would have been sharper if I was using say f8 and focused a lot closer but it gives you and idea of the sharpness.


That said using one on a Canon body without the use of an aperture ring and the high cost of the lens in the first place makes it a bit of none starter IMHO.

5804422213_028c0f9492_o.jpg


5804979534_99f5ff7021_o.jpg
 
if you were using a full frame canon maybe worth getting 14-24mm , but on a crop frame camera is not going to be used to its best.
it is a mega lens , but its on a full frame camera.

cheers Steve
 
This might be a record... But thanks for all your responses!

I've got a 5d mark ii now, so the decision has been made for me (16-35mm). But I do still wish Canon would introduce a full-frame lens as good as Nikon's.
 
Back
Top