Canon EF 11-24mm F/4 vs. Nikon 14-24mm F/2.8
The new Canon 11-24mm f/4 is their widest ever beast of a zoom. Roger has tested it and said it’s as sharp as we had hoped, but I wanted to know how it looked in a real world comparison with the other beautifully bulbous ultra wide, the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8.
All images shot at ISO 100 with center point focus.
Pretty close, huh? The Nikon 14-24mm has been regarded for a long time as the sharpest wide zoom available so it’s pretty exciting to see the new Canon holding its own. Even here at 100%:
In this sample of the upper left corner there is a bit more of a difference. The Nikon is pulling ahead in clarity it seems, but they are still very comparable.
It looks like this lens is a dream come true for die hard Canon shooters that have coveted the widest edition of the Nikon Holy Trinity, and maybe even for the Nikon shooters who are total wide rectilinear junkies.
Sarah McAlexander
28 Comments
James Scholz ·
Interesting and appreciated. You might compare it to the Zeiss 15. I switched to that lens a year ago because of flare issues on the Nikon 14-24, and have never looked back. To my eye sharpness, color, etc. are noticably better from the Zeiss.
Max ·
It would be very interesting to add to this comparison Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC USD especially after stunning Seattle sunset shots from DPreview guys.
Roger ·
And how will the Fuji 10-24 do in comparison? I switched from Nikon just about more than a year ago (to an XT-1) and I am quite happy.
A ·
Thank you for posting that comparison Roger!
Looks to me like the Nikon might have the edge (ironically) in the centre of the frame, but the Canon is generally better in the corners.
As a matter of interest, have you tested these two specific lenses to see if either is decentred?
Excellent results from the Canon considering it’s wide open, and the Nikon is down a stop.
Now to save up enough money to buy one…
sarah ·
A, yes both lenses were optically tested and up to spec before this comparison.
Andrew ·
I live by the 14-24 and have loved it since day one (flare issues aside). I’m glad canon has something even remotely comprable. It just expands the equipment I have available. And 11 is a good bump in fov… Hmmm.
George Kash ·
As a event shooter f4 will be very difficult to use in dim lilt situations.
So 11-24 not an option for me.
14-24 always did a good job for me, so looks like I’ll be still keeping Nikon body for this lens.
Great job Nikon for 14-24.
And so of course great job for Canon for creating 11-24 it is unique lens …. but in every business – you have to be quick , but this time it wasn’t the quickest respond 😉
Balage ·
@George
If you are using FF body comes out after 2012 from canon & nikon, you shouldnt be affraid of noise in most of time. 🙂
Pieter kers ·
Let us not forget the Nikkor is more than 5 years older in design – 1 stop faster and half of the the price. of the now presented Canon sibling ( that has 11mm of course).
It was made when Nikon sold the d2x body- 12MP DX format. It has been incredible how well it was then and still is to this moment. There are two weak spots on this Nikkor… Flare ( try evening shots with large lighted areas) and it has to be handled with care- one bump can get it out of balance…
About the test… I like more your LABtests Roger… I know from experience these lensens are so complicated in their behaviour- you cannot conclude much from this only field test.
sarah ·
Pieter, thank you for your comment. This test is meant to give a visual comparison to a Nikon counterpart and favorite. If you would like to read more on the optical data we have gathered on the Canon 11-24 here is a link to Rogers findings: http://wordpress.lensrentals.com/2015/02/canon-11-24-f4-l-mtf-tests
A ·
Correction: Thank you Sarah for posting this comparison!
Pieter kers ·
excuse-moi – i see i have to address Sarah McAlexander in this case… apologies
Fred ·
Hello,
The D750 is filtered and not very sharp… do the test with a D810 or a D800e with the 14-28 AFS and the results should be very different…
sarah ·
Fred, we felt the D750 was the most similar and fair comparison to the Canon 5DIII which is our most commonly rented camera.
Scott ·
Is it just my eyes/monitor, or does it seem like the Canon is slightly warmer than the Nikon? Is that a difference between the lenses themselves or how the images were processed?
Sarah ·
Scott, The images are SOOC. The Nikon system tends to shoot a bit cooler.
Joachim (Switzerland) ·
Canon is roughly double the price of Nikon’s. 3 mm more range vs. 1 full f-stop slower (which hasn’t to be a bad thing). It’s a pity you didn’t compare a situation where Nikon’s flaring is getting obvious, just to see Canon’s behavior in the same situation.
Regarding sharpness and resolution, I don’t see a reason to give up my Nikon. Better flare resistance would make me think about, but not only a little bit better. It should be really close to “free of flare”.
Sarah ·
Joachim, While that was not the focus when making this post, you may notice in the first set of images where the Nikon is showing flare in the sky area where the Canon is not. But to avoid flare completely with an ultra wide you may have to shoot in the dark 😉
Joachim (Switzerland) ·
It’s not about avoiding, it’s about “big enough to ruin the whole picture” 😀 I don’t think there will be no flare at all and under no circumstances ever happening and agree with you. The first set of pictures is a bit too small for me to see Nikon’s flares. Anyway, at this price it should be better.
Pieter kers ·
What i like about the 11mm of the Canon is that you have more image up/down when shooting in landscape mode. ( the 24mm) On the long side it will become quickly too much except for frontal shots.
If it can delever the 50MP than it is of good value. It must be you should think.
Mike Dougherty ·
Since I don’t use ultra wide angles very much but I like to carry one just in case, I carry a D7100 with Sigma 8-16 as a substitute instead of the Nikon 14-24 on a D810. It’s much smaller, lighter and actually covers more ultra wide angle focal lengths than the lenses tested above.
Dennis Krukover ·
As a landscape photographer I would love to see comparison @ f8 & f11.
michael andrew ·
Joachim,
The 14-24 is listed at 1999$ and the 11-24mm is currently listed at 2999$. Not half the price is US dollar math. In further analysis new product sticker price always dips 10-15% in a year or so.
Also to be fair 3mm to be put in context 11mm @126° vs 14mm’s @114° is roughly the same as saying the 600mm is only 100mm more than the 500mm because that is a similar difference in framing angle instead of say 397mm to 400mm.
11mm is significantly/noticeably/vastly wider than 14mm, whether or not that is a benefit of any use to use is of-course subjective.
Randy ·
Both impressive and priced accordingly. But apparently the Canon costs so much more in Europe that it figures into the comparison. The 11-24 is more expensive in the US as well but not that much, especially considering 11mm and the fact Canon USA has frequent rebates on desirable items which Nikon does not.
Mark Winchester ·
When I was looking for an ultra wide for the D800, I got a Tokina 16-28mm and we shot it along side a Nikon 14-24 (both on the same camera, alternating shots). With our one sample of each lens, the Tokina was the winner in everything we shot – narrower apertures, higher apertures, closer subjects, wider/deeper subjects. It also seemed a bit brighter. This surprised us, but we realized that the Tokina was built of the same DNA as their DX 11-16mm AND it was built when 36mp sensors were the top FX sensor size, while the 14-24 was designed for film and far lower resolution FX sensors. Relative to other lenses, I’m guessing an updated 14-24 would show the benefits of the improvements we have seen in other lenses.
Tiktian C ·
Mark Winchester,
The 14-24 came out when the d3 came out in 2007 which means it was probably designed with digital and not film in mind as well.
Dougbm ·
@ Mike Dougherty. The Sigma 8-16 is 12-24 on DX Nikon (12.8 -25.6 on Canon).
Jon S ·
the Nikon looks sharper and its a 2.8