If I knew then what I know now.

Started Aug 6, 2012 | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 27,835
Like?
Re: lol
In reply to russbarnes, Aug 8, 2012

russbarnes wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

russbarnes wrote:

It's the opposite for me. Canon are incapable of making a decent wide angle so switching to them would be unthinkable for me...

The 17 TSE and 24 TSE are stellar lenses. I don't think Nikon has a 17 TSE, and the Canon 24 TSE is a bit better. That said, sure, Canon needs something like the 14-24 / 2.8G. I'm thinking a 17-40 / 4L II (IS?) should be high on their list of priorities.

The only decent mark in there is the 17 TS-E, the 24 really isn't as good as people make out, it performs the same optically as the Nikon equivalent.

Forums like this, people get confused about why one is 'better' than the other and them the memes get propagated, so now all Canon TS-E are better than all Nikon PC-E whether you like it or not. The true reason that Canon Mk II TS-E are better is simply that they allow you to change the relative direction of tilt and shift in the field, whereas the Nikons are still as the Mk I Canons, where the T&S had to be set by a service centre (or yourself if you're happy to void the warranty).

Of course, if you have 36MP behind the 14-24, you can do a lot of the things you'd use a TS lens for in PP.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow