Sigma 12-24 is also another zoom to consider. Lightroom corrects both lenses very well, but in my long time search for the perfect UWA lens, I even bought a Nikon 14-24 to try to get distortion free UWA, but it's sharpness was still something that the 16-35II beat it especially in the center (The 14-24 definitely wins points edge to edge). However the very nature of all Ultra Wide Angle lenses do tend to fall victim to a very unique and hard to correct type of barrel distortion called moustache distortion. Landscape shots are really going to benefit with this lens, but interior shots will also benefit. So why compare? Beyond pixel peeping the versatility of the 16-35 does show it's value, but just for field of view and edge to edge image quality, there is a compelling reason to go with the much cheaper prime. One is automatic focus and diaphragm, while the other isn't. One lens costs $400 USD, while the other is somewhere around $1600 USD. Both lenses are Ultra-wide angle lenses and both are F/2.8 maximum aperture. So first things off, is it fair to compare a 14mm prime to a 16-35mm zoom. Hi, I'm mostly back, and have some time to post up the requested comparison of the Samyang 14mm F/2.8 lens to something like the Canon EF 16-36L f/2.8 II on my 5DmkII.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |