Nikkor Lens or Canon Lens is better for nature, landscapes?

<p>Hello Bro<br>

Exclusive of camera body which brand product best Lens for landscape photography?<br>

Which one is a winner at these competition?</p>

<p>Match 1 : Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens <strong>vs</strong> Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM ?<br>

Match 2 : Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens <strong>vs</strong> Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM ?<br>

Match 3 : Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G <strong>vs</strong> Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM ?<br>

Match 4 : Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX <strong>vs</strong> Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ?<br>

which one will be Hero ?</p>

<p>thanks</p>

You're comparing apples and pears, these are not similar offerings from Nikon and Canon. Photozone.de has probably

tested all of them, so start reading.

 

Zeiss beats both of them.

<p>Sorry, but your "competition" makes no sense. It sounds like another shot at the endless Canon-vs-Nikon debate, and the general consensus remains: they're both fine. The only thing that will make any of these lenses a 'hero' is a competent photographer, and a competent photographer will do fine with any of the lenses you mentioned.<br>

If it is strictly for landscape, I never quite get the point of the f/2.8 zooms, as most landscapes are shot well stopped down, where nearly all lenses perform alike. So, I'll take light, small and cheaper over heavy and large.</p>

<p>Your matches do have some mismatches too, not too sure what the point is:</p>

<ol>

<li>Nikon 12-24 is APS-C only; Canon 17-40 is a full frame lens. Focal lengths are distinct different.</li>

<li>The additional 2 mm wider of the Nikon make a huge impact - as does the additional 11mm longer for the Canon. It makes using them quite a different thing.</li>

<li>Why compare a f/2.8 zoom to a f/4 zoom is both companies have both a f/2.8 and f/4 offering (so 24-70 f/2.8 vs. 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105L versus 24-120VR).</li>

<li>Two oldies, both superseeded with much improved lenses (15-85IS for Canon, 16-85VR for Nikon)</li>

</ol>

<p>If you're looking to buy gear for landscape shooting, go to a shop and handle the cameras that fit your budget. The one you find most comfortable to use and operate is the best one for you. Start with the kitlens (which will do absolutely fine for landscapes), and off you go.</p>

<p>+1 to the above.<br>

My preference would always be for the lens designed for my camera body.</p>

Match 1 shouldn't be the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor vs canon EF 11-24mm f/4l vs Tamron 15-24 /2.8

 

But really if you can't make photos with any of these lenses the faul is with the photographer ,not the lens.

<p>Unlike portraits and action shots, landscapes work best with corner-to-corner sharpness. Both Canon and Nikon have a few lenses, even fewer zoom lenses, which qualify in that regard, but I can't say I have one in my collection. In small format, digital is a lot less forgiving than film. Lenses by Zeiss, Schneider or Leica are far better in that regard, especially those made for rangefinder or EVF cameras. Medium format cameras, like Hasselblad, are a safe bet too, or a Mamiya 7 (rangefinder). It doesn't hurt to use a heavy tripod and a cable release.</p>

<p>Wow, it's quite unfortunate that gear would determine 'best' landscape photography for you. I use mostly primes and I use them together with vision and technique. Sometimes I use a 3rd party lens like Tamron.</p>

<p>What I'm saying is, that in a given situation particular lens is chosen, since it gives the best results under the circumstances (irregardless who makes it). However, even if you use 'best' optics it does not necessarily mean that you'll walk away with fantastic shot/s. AA quote reminds us of this: <em>There is nothing worse than a sharp</em> <em>image of a fuzzy concept</em>.</p>

 

Anyway, what I'm saying is, get to know your gear/have a vision/technique and go out and shoot....and enjoy yourself. Skip the X is better than Y vs Z, etc. That said, some images (on purpose) don't have to be crystal clear to be wonderful.<br />

 

 

Les<br /><div></div>

<p>The answer to your headline question is "Yes". (In any particular situation one of those two suppliers probably has a product that better meets the requirements than does the other supplier.)</p>

<p>In most cases, however, "best" is a slippery and un-helpful concept. In most cases the question to ask is "In this particular situation, what would be good enough?" Given the huge product lines that both companies have, and again in most cases, both will have more than one solution that is "good enough" to meet any reasonable need.</p>

<p>In those cases where it is not clear what would be good enough, it is still pointless to ask "What would be best for my situation?" I have <strong>never</strong> seen anyone ask that question with enough detail that it can be usefully answered. Whether formally or informally you have to put in the work to write your own requirements specification. When you have done that you will probably know what is "best" for you. If not, you will know enough to ask useful questions, such as "Does anyone have images showing the bokah of lens X at various f/ stops when focused at about 8 feet with a 'full-frame' sensor?"</p>

 

<p>When it comes to landscapes, you can keep your Nikon and Canon lenses both. I like something from the early 1900s with some crappy design done by hand before computers, with all sorts of flaws, no autofocus, something that makes it really hard to make a good picture. Lenses like that worked for Ansel, so they're good enough for me. :)</p>

<p>Is chocolate better than vanilla? Red Sox better than Yankees? Barring a damaged lens, it's possible to make good images with any of those lenses. For many people, differences in technique will far outweigh inherent lens differences. Without intending offense, if you're basically asking whether Nikon or Canon lenses are better, you're probably one of those many people. Hell, I'm mostly one of those people. Usually I don't have the discipline to get out there when light is optimal, drag out my heavy tripod, rig up for remote release, etc.</p>

<p>Nothing else to add to prior comments, except to note that all the lenses you've listed are either very wide angle or at least have fairly wide at one end of their zoom range. Not all good or compelling landscape photos are a matter of "cram in as much as you can" via wide angle lens.</p>

<p>In these focal lengths, it hardly matters. Stick with whichever system you're already using. If you haven't picked a system yet, the go handle them in a store and decide which one feels best in your hands.</p>

<p>I read many times canon tilt-shift better than Nikon’s equivalent<br />I thought there is this rule about wide-angel lens</p>

 

<p>Canon's 24mm TS-E II may be better than Nikon's 24PC-E, at least some architectural photographers are saying that. The Nikkor is a bit tricky to use because of its field curvature at long distances (so you have to focus carefully and evaluate sharpness across the frame using live view, to optimize the quality of the results) But I quite like the Nikkor nevertheless. The 45mm and 85mm PC-E both focus down to 1:2 (they are Micro Nikkors) and produce excellent results. I use them for close-ups as well as landscape photography (ice sheets on water in particular). There is no 17mm PC-E Nikkor yet.</p>

<p>By contrast, the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is widely regarded as the gold standard for image quality in superwide angle lenses, and some Canon users are using it with an adapter on their Canon bodies. However, Canon recently introduced the 11-24/4L which is intended to challenge the 14-24mm Nikkor. I guess it depends on application and budget (it is extremely expensive), whether it achieves that; in many documentary / event photography situations I'd prefer the f/2.8 and for wide field astrophotography, and aurora borealis, the f/2.8 maximum aperture is also very useful. Nikon has also some newer, excellent wide angle lenses such as the affordable 20mm f/1.8 AF-S Nikkor. Personally I see that wide angles have traditionally been (and still are) an area of strength for Nikon, but Canon currently offers more options in tilt shift wide angles.</p>

<p>Canon now has excellent wide angles: 8-15mm, 11-24 and 16-35 f4 IS are the match for anything out there, as are the 24, 28, 35 primes with IS. I see the 16-35mm f2.8 as similar to Nikon's 17-35mm. Then there are the TSE lenses. Unfortunately they don't really have a good regular prime <24mm, you may need to go to Zeiss for those. I am sure the OP can make either Nikon or Canon work for him.</p>

<p>Robin, the EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM is an excellent lens, but expensive. The discontinued EF 15mm f/2.8 diagonal fish-eye is very good also and can be de-fish with good (not great) results. I plan to borrow the 14mm and the 11-24mm from CPS the next time that I have two to three-thousand in cash to invest in my lens arsenal. I'm not sure which will win out in my hands, big and flexible or compact and really good at one thing.</p>

<p>Hi David,</p>

<p>Agree about the fisheye, but didn't mention it as most people are not really into them. What is missing is a good 21, 20mm, 18mm etc prime(s) (excluding the 17mm TSE). I also don't think the 14mm is as good as the 11-24, nor the Nikon 14-24. They could do with one or two primes for those of us who don't want to buy another large overlapping wide angle zoom. I'd be interested to hear how you get on with the 14mm and 11-24mm and which you end up with.</p>

<p>It'll probably be next fall, but when I compare the 14mm and the 11-24mm I'll post a little review here.</p>

<p>Also, when using those ultra-wide zooms, I believe it's super critical to use some form of Digital Lens Optimization to correct what geometric distortion that may be left. When the distortion is well controlled by the lens, then that last bit of correction is not highly damaging and your results can get very close to an excellent prime. I've been using DxO's Optics Pro for my DLO since 2009. Canon added DLO to Digital Photo Professional a couple of years ago and Lightroom has a form of DLO in its add-ons. Particularly with wide zooms, I think that DLO is imperative. </p>

<p>I just purchased a D80Oe and found that GradND filters vignette on fullframe cameras using my 24-120. Checking lots of internet research and review sites, I discovered that vignetting has been a problem with most wide angle zooms. Lee and Cokin have developed filter systems using 100mm+ filters for wide angles, but the cost is $300-400, which doesn't provide for more than one or two. Actually, the 12-24 is so wide that Im not sure the 100mm filters would work: a step up to 150mm might be necessary. I also found several well-known photo authors who are giving up their 12-24 for the new 16-35 f4, primarily because of the filter problems. More and more professionals seem to recognize that one can't accurately duplicate the results of GradNDs using Photoshop. <a href="http://www.traininginsholinganallur.in/java-training-in-chennai.html">Java training in chennai</a> | <a href="http://www.traininginsholinganallur.in/android-training-in-chennai.html">Android training in chennai</a></p>

<p>Canon EF 24-70mm ƒ/2.8L IS USM I wish Canon would make this lens! Your typo got me excited for a minute! .... Canon DOES Make this lens ! I have One <a href="http://www.traininginsholinganallur.in/java-training-in-chennai.html">Java training in chennai</a> | <a href="http://www.traininginsholinganallur.in/android-training-in-chennai.html">Android training in chennai</a> | <a href="http://www.traininginsholinganallur.in/oracle-dba-training-in-chennai.html">Oracle dba Training in Chennai</a><br /><br>

</p>

 

<p>I finally got a chance to compare the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L and the EF 14mm f/2.8l II, as I promised a few months back. They're both have incredibly low distortion, even at 11 and 14mm. The image below shows the low distortion at 14mm:</p>

<p><a title="Ultra-wide Demonstration" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1615/25876644872_ac932c3fec_c.jpg" alt="Ultra-wide Demonstration" width="800" height="400" /></a></p>

<p>I literally stood close to the front of the building, held the camera level and took the shot. The lack of barrel distortion is exemplary. Chromatic aberration and vignetting were low. The big advantage of a tilt-shift will be that you can hold the plain of the sensor out of alignment with the subject and still correct for that. Both these lens have considerably wider field of view than Canon's excellent 17mm tilt-shift. </p>

<p>The 14mm has a slight advantage for astro photography because of its larger f/2.8 aperture.</p>

<p>I'm going to buy the 14mm, mainly because the 11-14mm is necessarily huge and heavy. My current kit that I carry whenever shooting birds and wildlife is: Canon 7D MkII, with EF 500mm f/4L IS II mounted, my 5DsR with my 70-200/f4 mounted and, in a vest, 1.4x and 2.0x TC-IIIs, EF 25ET, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS, EF 15mm diagonal fisheye.</p>

<p>I want to replace the 15mm because when I de-fish its images, there's some smearing in the corners. The 11-24mm takes up more volume and weighs more than my 70-200mm. The 11-24mm will not fit in any of my vest's pockets, so I'd need to carry it on my belt, or some other way. OTOH, the 14mm fits in the pocket with the two TCs and the ET.</p>

<p>The 14/f2.8 has a street price at $2,000 and the 11-24mm is at $3,000. For me, the price differential is not a huge factor. I consider an ultra-wide essential, but I only use it occasionally. I've taken enough pix with my 15mm that I want IQ that's on the same level as my other lenses, if not better. So, the 14mm will be my next major purchase, as my budget allows.</p>