Nikon 14-24 on Canon 5D via novoflex adapter

<p>Hi all, no question here, just a quick recap of my experience (and slight problem) with the Novoflex EOSNIK/NT adapter and the Nikon 14-24. If you're like me, the possibility of mounting the Nikon 14-24 on my Canon body just seemed too good to pass up. So I purchased the Novoflex adapter for about 200 USD. Mounting was easy and the Nikon lens worked as advertised. Light metering works, but no autofocus and only limited aperture control (via a lever on the adapter). Just to see how good the Nikon lens is, I compared it with my Canon 17-40mm and Samyang 14mm. What I noticed immediately is how sharp across the frame the Nikon is compared to both lenses. Moreover, the Canon had quite some barrel distortion and the Samyang, well....it's like taking a photo and crumpling it up ("moustache" I've been told). I am sold on the Nikon. But now for the bad news, that niffty Novoflex adapter now won't come off the Nikon lens, no matter how hard I try to get it off. Needless to say, the lens rental company was not amused and sent it to their repair guys to see what they can do. If they charge me for the repair, I may need to offer to buy the lens from them....which won't be too bad of a deal ;-)<br>

Cheers,<br>

Joel</p>

<p>You're better off with the cheap adapters from China. I think the 14-24 may be a "G" lens which means you need the proper adapter for it as well.</p>

<p>Not really fair to compare the 14-24 to the 17-40, better the 16-35/2.8 L, however the 14-24 does go to 14 and is supposed to be an exceptional lens. I chose to go the route of the 17 TS-E and stitch for a 12mm equivalent.</p>

<p>A pity that nobody has made an adapter which communicates electronically with the camera body to set the aperture on Nikon G lenses.</p>

<p>I've had that happen a couple of times - it's generally the release pin in the adapter. You have to disassemble the adapter a bit to get it released, but certainly shouldn't be anything requiring an actual repair. </p>

<p>It's okay Ed, the proper adapter does allow full control over the "G" lens aperture.</p>

<p>John C., do you have a link to the adaptor you mean? I mean one that communicates electronically with the camera body so you can use 'P' and 'Tv' exposure modes.</p>

<p>John, indeed not fair to compare a $2000 lens to a $700 and a $400 one. I expect that the overall sharpness of the Canon 17mm TS will be quite similar to the Nikon. <br /> roger, I couldn't find any way to disassemble it. It doesnt have that many moving parts. <br /> John/Ed, indeed which adapter is that? I don't think an adapter that allows autofocus, and full (electronic) aperture control exists. (which I think is pretty amazing in itself, as I think many of us would buy it)<br>

cheers,<br /> Joel</p>

<p>I personally find it a little hard to believe a Nikon lens with a third party adapter substantially beat out the Canon 17-40 F4L. I shoot with both a 16-35 and the 17-40 F4L and the 17 has very little barrel distortion. Much less than the Canon 24-105 F4L IS.<br>

I am surprised you are not seeing more barrel distortion with Nikon at 14MM with adapter you should see substantial vignetting in the corners definitely more that the Canon as teh adapter moves the lens further away from the sensor than a normal fit. But, hey I guess if it works and gives better results. Great. But, for $700 buck i really love the Canon 17-40 F4L.</p>

<p>M.P. It's true, esp in terms of corner sharpness, the Nikon blows the 17-40 away (at about F5.6). The barrel distortion of the 17-40 isn't huge (and I've been told is fairly easily removed in the Raw converter) but on the Nikon it's virtually non-existent - really impressive.</p>

<p>I to shoot a Nikon 14-24 on my Canon 1D Mark IV and it does smoke the Canon 17-40. I mostly bought this for stars to shoot wide open. I also use the Novoflex adapter and tried to remove it the other day with no success. I recently put the Fotodiox filter system on it which is awesome, a 145mm polarizer.<br /> I'm thinking about getting a D800E just for this lens but kinda scare where that might lead. Next thing you know I'll be back to shooting Nikon. The color difference in the image I posted was just the fact the sun shining on the Canon images and not the Nikon.</p>

<p>Ben, the sharpness of the Nikon over the Canon is obvious, but since the Canon shot was made in sunlight and the Nikon shot in shadow, the color difference seems to be rather natural - to me at least.</p>