Tri Elmar vs. Nikon 14-24

[aboudd]

I would like some advice. I am considering selling my Nikon 14-24 and getting the lighter weight Tri 16/18/21 as a replacement, planning to use it on an M9 if they ever show up.

Has anyone done a side by side comparison of these lenses? Is the Tri Elmar flat of field - without barrel distortion? I would appreciate any information based on first hand use.

Please send responses to me at [email protected]

Thanks

 

[Mike Hatam]

Aboudd -

Rather than ask people to email you their responses, the responses should be posted here, so others can benefit from this knowledge as well. You can come back to visit the thread at your leisure to see what people have to say.

I have not shot these side-by-side for a detailed comparison, but have owned and shot both lenses at different times, and on different bodies.

I shot the Nikon 14-24 on a Canon 1Ds3 and 5DII, and of course the WATE on an M9.

Both are fantastic lenses. The Nikon is significantly better than the equivalent Canon wide-angle (16-35L II), and nearly as good as the famous Zeiss 21 Distagon.

The WATE is also an exceptional lens. It is quite sharp, all the way to the edges of the full-frame M9 sensor, and has minimal distortion. From memory, the WATE has less distortion than the Nikon.

The Nikon is a huge lens. That lens by itself is probably bigger than an M9 w/ WATE mounted. So the M9/WATE combo opens up a completely different level of freedom and shooting style.

I would not hesitate to use the M9/WATE combo in critical situations, such as critical architectural shots. It's that good.

I never used the Nikon in those situations, so can't comment on that, but the Nikon was fantastic as a landscape lens (where distortion is less critical).

My personal choice would be the M9/WATE combo, simply for the size/weight advantages. I think either lens will produce excellent image quality.

Mike

 

[ptomsu]

I owned the Nikkor 14-24 and I own the WATE. I actually sold all my Nikon gear (there are a number of reasons for that) but the 14-24 was an excellent lens, besides it's size.

It actually depends on what you own and want to do, if you are mainly in a Nikon system, then I would not sell the 14-24, but if you are looking for an equally good or in some areas even better lens (in combination with a M9) then I would definitely go for the WATE.

Do not forget that it requires a lot of more practice as it needs the separate finder, while the Nikkor on a DSLR is of course much more intuitive. But if you overcome this period of getting used to it, then the WATE is worth it's money.

BTW - I do not agree that the 14-24 is much better than the Canon 16-35 II - I owned this lens as well and at least my copy was an excellent one and actually much more comfortable to shoot than the Nikkor, as it is a lot smaller.

 

[bradhusick]

I owned a WATE and sold it because I was only using it on the 16mm setting, so having the other lengths was unnecessary. I bought the new Leica 18mm f/3.8 and I love this lens. I use the Zeiss 18mm finder as I find the image more usable than the Leica finder (brighter, clearer).

 

[s.agar]

I owned the 14-24 and I still have the WATE.
14-24 was an excellent lens, but was very big and heavy. While selling all my Nikon gear, this was in the first lot.
M8/WATE combination is still with me, but the main reason is to have the 16mm setting. I'm using the lens with a 21mm viewfinder, rather than the bulky Leica viewfinder that came with the WATE.
There's no other 16mm in the Leica range, and I was not satisfied with the CV 15mm. (I still have the CV 12mm though).

Seyhun

 

[aboudd]

Thanks everyone for your help. I shoot architecture for my work, using mostly the 24 PCE, the old 35 PC, the 45 and 85 PCE lenses. Once in a while I use the 14-24, as I did a few days ago, at the 18MM setting. I find that when I use it at 14MM it is subject to barrel distortion, correctable in CS4. However, I have only used it at 14MM a couple of times, so carrying that weight and bulk all of the time is getting old. As I am planning a purchase of the M9 (I recently picked up an M6 to use as training wheels) the WATE seems like a viable alternative to the 14-24. I can put the M and the WATE in the same space taken up by the 14-24 now. So, if the WATE has less distortion than the 14-24, my choice is easy. Now does anyone have a pristine WATE 16-21 with finder they want to sell?

 

[Mike Hatam]

Aboudd,

You can post a WTB (Want-to-Buy) ad on our Buy/Sell forum:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=29

That's how I got my used WATE. They generally run around $3,400 used these days, but the prices are creeping upward, so you may have to pay a bit more.

You might try out the M9/WATE combo first and then decide if you should sell the 14-24. If you don't like the WATE, you shouldn't have too much trouble selling it used online.

Mike