Nikon 17-35 or Canon 16-35 ?

[Rick Darge]

Never tried out the Canon 16-35. I've used the 17-35 tons on the Red and now on the Canon 5D. At full frame, the 17-35 vignettes slightly from 17-20mm. With the new firmware coming on Tuesday, I'm thinking about an L series lens purchase. How does the 16-35 compare?

 

[Kholi Hicks]

www.cinema5d.com
www.16-9.net
www.fredmiranda.com
www.google.com = 17-35/2.8 ED vs 16-35L

Short answer: 14-24 > ^

Hee~

My 5D arrives tomorrow, I'm gonna leave it boxed up until my Contax Adapters get here and use the GH-1 til the firmware update.

 

[Tom Lowe]

I think the Nikon 17-35 is generally considered to be superior. You should post at cinema5D to see if others are having vignetting problems.

But the lens that really interests me in the 17-35 range is the Contax N Zeiss. This lens is said to be ridiculously sharp at edges (perhaps at the expense of the center) but almost magically resistant to flares. Our own Francis Kenny has one and swears by it. I've been trying to think up some lame excuse to borrow it from him to do some tests. The Contaxt N Zeiss requires a very expensive adaptation, though, for EOS -- like $800, which pushes the overall price of the lens, used, to like $2,500, I think.

Otherwise, going wider, the 14-24 pwns all.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

I think the Nikon 17-35 is generally considered to be superior. You should post at cinema5D to see if others are having vignetting problems.

But the lens that really interests me in the 17-35 range is the Contax N Zeiss. This lens is said to be ridiculously sharp at edges (perhaps at the expense of the center) but almost magically resistant to flares. Our own Francis Kenny has one and swears by it. I've been trying to think up some lame excuse to borrow it from him to do some tests. The Contaxt N Zeiss requires a very expensive adaptation, though, for EOS -- like $800, which pushes the overall price of the lens, used, to like $2,500, I think.

Otherwise, going wider, the 14-24 pwns all.

I didn't even know I liked Tom, but now I do.

I've had my eye on the Contax Zeiss N 17-35/2.8 for a good while now. One popped up on ebay with an EOS conversion for a whoppin 3K and I bet it's still up there.

One with just the N mount is about 1700 which is very reasonable and it'll attach directly to the Panasonic Lumix GH-1 in it's current form.

Also would LOVE to own a copy of the 21/2.8

Thing is, would you go for a 14-24/2.8 or the 17-35n?

 

[Rick Darge]

But how do you even control the iris on the 5D with the 14-24?

 

[Tom Lowe]

I didn't even know I liked Tom, but now I do.

I've had my eye on the Contax Zeiss N 17-35/2.8 for a good while now. One popped up on ebay with an EOS conversion for a whoppin 3K and I bet it's still up there.

One with just the N mount is about 1700 which is very reasonable and it'll attach directly to the Panasonic Lumix GH-1 in it's current form.

Also would LOVE to own a copy of the 21/2.8

Thing is, would you go for a 14-24/2.8 or the 17-35n?

I actually ordered the 14-24 today from B&H! I've been saving money for a while and finally did it. I'm very interested in the Contax N 17-35, but as you say, it's pricey, and I honestly don't know how a slightly older design like that will do at 21MP RAW, on the 5D2, compared to the insane performance of the 14-24? Also, I really love the notion of being able to shoot wide open 2.8 at 14mm. It's damn near fisheye. And for me, trying to shoot wide timelapse shots of the Milky Way at night, for example, every millimeter counts.

The Contax N 17-35 is definitely on my wishlist, though. I won't be surprised at all if that lens becomes extremely sought-after by Red DSMC FF35 shooters.

Richard, there is a Nikon G>EOS adapter at 16-9.net for around $225 USD.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

I actually ordered the 14-24 today from B&H! I've been saving money for a while and finally did it.

Tom, one of the best calls you ever made! I've been using mine for a week and I'm giggling constantly everytime I download my cards and open up Photoshop. Hot damn brother, never thought a lens could do such things. This is at the same time I've been supervising a commercial shot on Angenieux and Cooke glass, and every time I project stills on the big screen, the 14-24 thumps the cine glass by a lot. You'll be very happy!

 

[Tom Lowe]

Awesome! You know, it might sound silly, but getting this 14-24 actually has me fired up to really get up and shoot some new, super-wide stuff in the mountains. I guess if a lens can motivate me, it's as good as any other form of motivation! :thumbsup:

 

[conurus]

I think the Nikon 17-35 is generally considered to be superior. You should post at cinema5D to see if others are having vignetting problems.

But the lens that really interests me in the 17-35 range is the Contax N Zeiss. This lens is said to be ridiculously sharp at edges (perhaps at the expense of the center) but almost magically resistant to flares. Our own Francis Kenny has one and swears by it. I've been trying to think up some lame excuse to borrow it from him to do some tests. The Contaxt N Zeiss requires a very expensive adaptation, though, for EOS -- like $800, which pushes the overall price of the lens, used, to like $2,500, I think.

Otherwise, going wider, the 14-24 pwns all.

Let me add that the Contax N 17-35 is a parfocal, a rare virtue in a modern autofocus zoom.

Also, all the 17-35's converted by me since 2007/04 has the undocumented feature of controlling the aperture via the lens' aperture ring without a camera by applying +5V to the appropriate pins. (Normally, the aperture ring has no linkage to the aperture diaphragm as the Contax N system's aperture is "fly-by-wire". I had to implement this in my own firmware.)

 

[Tom Lowe]

Welcome to the forum, conurus!!

 

[Alexander Alexandrov]

i was wondering about these too.
i have the 17-35 and it's a great nikon glass, but with the birger mount available, was thinking of 16-35 canons and remote focus control via impero (would be great for red steadicam work). in such cases i screw on 77mm filters on nikon glass. 16-35 canon's is 82mm