Does Nikon Need Some Good Canon Lenses?

<p>I am not trying to belittle what Nikon has done with the new medium format quality D800. It is magnificent in terms of resolution and overall quality and features at a reasonable price, and I hope that Canon follows suit <strong><em>very shortly</em></strong> on all those points.</p>

<p>Even so, when I looked at this image carefully, I could not help but (almost) instinctively "go for the corners," in this case the bottom left and bottom right:</p>

<p>http://mansurovs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Nikon-D800-Image-Sample-1.jpg</p>

<p>Was this shot with a Nikon lens? There is substantial distortion of shapes in the corners, and is that pin cushion distortion that I see in scrolling across from bottom left to bottom right?</p>

<p>In any case, my question should probably be rephrased: has Nikon's new body outrun its lenses? I really do not know, and so the question is an honest one.</p>

<p>Lest I be misunderstood, yes, Canon, we will abandon you in an instant if you do not stop the price gouging and if you keep coming in second to Nikon where bodies are concerned! The D3X over the 1Ds III was one thing, but enough is enough! Come out with the best, or at least have the common courtesy to drop your prices.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>In addition, the Nikon shot posted above shows absolutely NO chromatic aberration. What's up, Canon? Can you get rid of the chroma noise while you are at it?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I see a little purple fringing in the skylights, but that's a tough contrast there.</p>

The only question I have is why did you

post a Nikon query in the Canon

forum?

<p>Read my original post above, Jamie: it's a message to Canon.</p>

<p>Comparisons of the two are appropriate on both threads. I chose the Canon thread since I shoot mostly<br>

Canon.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Landrum, the only major questions I

can see are:

 

1. Does Nikon need some good canon

lenses?

 

2. Has Nikon's new body outrun it's

lenses?

<blockquote>

<p>Was this shot with a Nikon lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you kidding - Nikon is going to use images in their D800 advertising that aren't shot with a Nikon lens?<br /> As the EXIF data reveal, the image in question was actually shot with Nikon's best wide-angle (there are some Canon users who use it too): AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED - shot at 15mm.</p>

<p><br /> Every wide-angle lens will show some amount of distortion, usually barrel at the wider end and often pincushion at the longer end. According to photozone, the distortion characteristics is all barrel for the 14-24 - quite large at 14mm and almost zero at 24mm.</p>

<p>There are several posts in the Nikon forum that attempt to address the question of which lenses can do the D800 sensor justice - Nikon even published a D800 technical guide that lists a few that are deemed to be "good enough" - not sure the list is exhaustive though.</p>

<p>I believe that was taken with the 14-24, which some few Canon users have adapted. It is a great lens but nothing is perfect. Overall I think it is remarkably sharp and detailed.</p>

<p>One assumes you mean the 5D3 vs this D800? Canon's samples are just pre-production in-camera JPGs, there are no raws yet. Too early to judge. </p>

<p>The price will end up being whatever the market will bear.</p>

<p><em>> what Nikon has done with the new medium format quality D800.</em><br /> ..?<br /> Have you ever shot with medium format digital ..? I guess not, because the samples I've seen from the D800 are not even close to MFD Anno Domini 2006 let alone 2012. Geez, a 6 years old PhaseOne p45+ back (39 mpixels...) beats the stuffing out of anything I've see thus far from D800 in terms of detail, contrast and lack of aberrations. Yep, the 800D has the ISO advantage (realistically, ISO 200, is max on the p45+) but so what..?</p>

<p>Where is this library?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the image in question was actually shot with Nikon's best wide-angle</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sad, isn't it? A wide zoom is the best wide angle lens that Nikon has? </p>

<p>I rather doubt that.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The price will end up being whatever the market will bear.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And then comes the market adjustment. . . .</p>

<p>Nikon has done more than offer a great camera--it has done so at a great price. Canon, listen up!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Something is definitely wrong here. I see that 692.48RU is mischelved!</p>

<p>Lannie, the distortion is normal for an ultrawide rectilinear lens. It would be the same if the lens were Canon's. Is that your point? And yes, there's CA, but that's quite typical of a high contrast edge on an ultrawide lens.</p>

<p>Don't know where the library is, but they still have Micofiche readers !</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see that 692.48RU is mischelved!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah, you're too funny, and I was looking for something serious. I had no idea what you were talking about at first. I even googled the LC number you gave and got something in Russian before I caught your joke.</p>

<p>As for the various lenses, I am not quite reconciled to the fact that "rectilinear" is a label that must be offered with qualifiers when one is talking about the corners. I know that corners are a problem, but does no one have a prime that can avoid distortion in the corners? My rhetoric and ignorance are getting me into trouble here, but the point was not to stir the Canon v. Nikon pot; rather, to raise a topic that I thought might be promising. Then again, perhaps it was not as promising as I thought.</p>

<p>In any case, I had not run that photo through PS to find out the EXIF data, and I did not know if it was an official Nikon photo or simply something that someone had taken. (My impression was that some persons had been given cameras and were posting their own shots, but perhaps not.) </p>

<p>In any case, I did not mean for the question or my subsequent posts to sound so flippant, as they seem to do upon rereading.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Maybe this should have been my original question within the question: Does no one have a prime that can avoid distortion in the corners?</p>

<p>The fact that zooms distort is obvious enough. I have a Sigma 12-24 that can be quite horrific at the wide end, but I thought that surely there was a very wide prime that nailed the corners. Perhaps not. . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Canon's 14mm will have a little less distortion that Nikon's 14-24 (which everyone considers the golden standard for wide anglel lenses (prime or zoom) nowadays) - but it's corner sharpness won't reach Nikon's. Nikon's 14mm will even fare worse. Canon's 17mm TS-E lens has less distortion than the 14/2.8 and stopped down a bit a fairly even sharpness distribution across the frame - but it's not as wide.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sad, isn't it? A wide zoom is the best wide angle lens that Nikon has?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since one is hard pressed to find a better lens from any manufacturer in this segment, I don't think it qualifies as sad but rather shows what is possible nowadays. Nikon's 14/2.8 and 14-24/2.8 cost about the same, yet the zoom sets the standard.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Where is this library?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>French National Library in Paris: http://ivrpa.org/gallery/user/2700/still/paris_french_national_library_bi</p>

 

<p>Quite possibly. ;-)</p>

<p>TS-E24 f/3.5L II, please!</p>

 

<p>Lannie, my comment would have been a bit better understood if I hadn't inserted a critical typo!</p>

<p>In answer to your question, the distortion is a property of the geometry of a rectilinear lens. Your Sigma 12-24 may be a bit soft when not stopped down enough, but it is probably the least distorted extreme-wide rectilinear lens there is, and it will show exactly that sort of swoopy distortion in the margins. Some rectilinear lenses create barrel distortion, and that would pull in the corners just a bit, but I think you would still find the edge/corner distortion objectionable.</p>

<p>The type of ultrawide lens that keeps objects from getting stretchy and distorted is actually a diagonal fisheye. You would find that objects in the corners of the frame would not be stretched and distorted. The down-side, of course, is that straight lines become bowed unless they pass through the center of the frame. In the UWA category, I use a 17-40, the Sigma 12-24, and the Zenitar 16mm fisheye. I actually use the Sigma only rarely. Usually when I'm photographing that wide, I go straight to the fisheye. I do this especially when photographing people, because stretchy heads are awful. On the other hand, they often end up with bad posture:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phthereenactorssm.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Landrum, you're kidding, right? Having a sensor that outclasses your lenses would be a nice problem to have, and I have some very nice glass. Aside from that, nobody *knows* how a Canon lens will compare. The pixel pitch on the D800 is 205 px/mm. The best FF that Canon has to offer is a paltry 160 px/mm. The D800 pixel pitch compares to a 14 MP APS-C sensor. APS-C sensors don't challenge the FF corners, so we have nothing at all to base an opinion.</p>

<p>I'm with Dan South on this. Slap a TS-E 17mm on it, and help Sarah find her book. ;)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The type of ultrawide lens that keeps objects from getting stretchy and distorted is actually a diagonal fisheye.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, Sarah. Thank you so much! Wow again! I really had no idea about any of this. This is fascinating, and it certainly is not what I expected to learn--but then one never knows or understands in advance what it is that one does not know. I am going to have to bookmark this page so that I can come back and consult your post from time to time. There is a lot of information in those few sentences.</p>

<p>Thank you so much for being my teacher.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Thanks, Michael. I'm not sure I followed all of that. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Dan and Michael:<strong> TS-E 17mm</strong></p>

<p>Are you guys saying that that is the best wide lens in the corners? I wish that my pockets were that deep.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Just for the record, does anyone know what Nikon's best wide prime is, if it is better than the best Canon wide prime? I have an old manual focus Nikon 600 f/4 which fits on my EF mounts with adapters, but I really would like to know what is available in wide angle--of any brand, with adapters (for the EOS mount). I will not be able to afford either the 5D III or the D800 for the foreseeable future, but getting the most out of my 5D II with the right glass might be something that I could swing if I sold off a couple of things. </p>

<p>I really want to get up on the Appalachian Trail to Roan Highlands and Grassy Ridge Bald before the tourists start coming back when it gets warm, and getting the best shots out of the camera body I have--not to mention getting a few more miles out of this creaky old body's ancient legs--is something I would like to do while I can still do it. The last time I was up there many years ago, I was carrying an Instamatic. . . . One never knows when one's next foray into the high country is going to be one's last.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>The TS-E is a special purpose lens, TS being short for tilt-shift. The image circle is larger than the sensor to allow for shifting. I don't know if its corner performance is superior, although I expect that it is. The reason to use a TS-E is for perspective control, and to tilt the focus plane. As Sarah points out, there isn't a single overall best choice independent of intended use. They each have their place, as much for aesthetic choice, or for engineering trade-offs and cost considerations. (For the architectural shot you posted, a TS-E would be a great choice.)</p>

<p>Earlier, I wrote to point out that Canon does not sell a FF sensor capable of capturing the same detail that the D800 can. We have no way, aside from testing lenses off-camera on an optical bench, to know if any Canon offering is any better or worse in the corners than the shot you posted.</p>