Ultrawide mega-test: Nikon vs Canon vs Sigma

Hello all,

I did an objective test of the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6, the Sigma 20 f/1.8 prime and the Canon 8-15 f/4 L fisheye.

The review includes samples and crops from all the lenses and is done from a real world use perspective. If you're having a hard time choosing between any of them, do take a look.

http://www.sandeepmurali.com/blog/2013/3/mother-of-all-ultrawide-shootouts---nikon-vs-canon-guest-starring-sigma

Thanks!

sandeep, thanks for the detailed test.

some caveats

1. as you said, sensor resolution makes a big difference. at the end of the day, right now, if you want the most detail, d800 is the way to go.  Roger from lens rental demonstrated that the tamron 24-70 vr gives higher resolution on d800 than the mighty canon 24-70 2.8 II does on 5d3.  so as you stated astutely, even after downsizing, the original resolution does make a difference.

2. Not sure if I agree about using filters. many landscape photographers dont use filters, b/c of loss of contrast, resolution, and additional flare.  I  would have left the filter out.

3.  having owned an shot extensively, both for comparison reasons and real world situations, a good copy of 16-35II, and 14-24, both on canon 5d2 and 5d3, I have a few additional observations

a: Nikon has better micro contrast, as long as its not ruined by flare (which happens very easily).  canon is no slouch, but nikon is a bit better.

b:  Canon has better performance in the corner in near field.  this is visible from f5.6 on.  Nikon does better in the far field at all f stops and focal lengths.  your test did not test for Far field corner performance except in your folliage comparison.  the reason Nikon consistently did better in folliage, is better far feild deatil.  , is it is just sharper in far field than near field, and canon is vice versa

4. I would not call 12-24 unusable, though I agree it is in a different (far below) class.  I have taken many shots with it which I have really liked, though corner sharpness has not been great.

5.  I agree with you that the Nikon 14-24 is not always the easiest landscape lens to use b/c can use filters, and it flares very easily.  as for the nikon 16-35, it has hefty barrel distortion at 16, 4.34% vs canon 3.26.  Canon 16-35 II is more of a dual purpose lens, as many wedding photographers use it, and its probably the most commonly used lens for photojournalism.  the canon has a nice VR that can be helpful in a pinch.  both very good lenses.

I think it would have been a more fair comparison using a 5DMIII against the D800.  Also, I have the Sigma 12-24 and while I have not done extensive testing, my results do not look anything like yours in the test you did - but I do use it on a 5DMIII.  I think it's a great lens and I have sent back 16-35 and 14mm Canons in favor of the Sigma.  Maybe I just have a great copy. The Nikon results do look great. Bill

Synnberg wrote:

Hello all,

I did an objective test of the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR, the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 L II, the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6, the Sigma 20 f/1.8 prime and the Canon 8-15 f/4 L fisheye.

The review includes samples and crops from all the lenses and is done from a real world use perspective. If you're having a hard time choosing between any of them, do take a look.

http://www.sandeepmurali.com/blog/2013/3/mother-of-all-ultrawide-shootouts---nikon-vs-canon-guest-starring-sigma

Thanks!

Your site either locked up or it is too slow.

1.) 14-24G

2.) EF 16-35 II

Based on more than just resolution.

I'll throw out the prime and the fisheye since they don't fit.

You should try and keep the same exposure in those pictures. The Nikon is clearly more bright. Underexposure has a lot of influence in the detail aspect. Also I don't know how you got to the conclusion that the 5d mak ii has 160 ISO "native". Just shoot at the same ISO if you want a clear comparison. Also the same number of megapixels would be normal. If you want to test lens, best method would be to fit all the lens to the same camera using an adapter. Maybe you can find a Nikon to Canon adapter and shoot only with the 5d. Then you have a comparison of the lens, not the system.

And as somebody said the Canon 16-35 f2.8 is clearly different from all your lens. Is designed to be fast and maybe this loses some resolution. But I would not carry the 14-24 at an event because it is huge. Also the Nikon 16-35 is just f4...

these are shot on 5d2 with both lenses. it well demonstrate the near vs far field difference in sharpness.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2900970#forum-post-36845899

I have the Sigma 12-24 and although it's not brilliant, my experience is that it's not as bad as you claim. Perhaps you have a bad copy.