 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007Canon's Wide lenses (24mm in particular)
I'll begin with profuse apologies for the likely fallout from this post, but here goes. I read many people (Nikon-fans, mostly) on this forum that love to hate on Canon's wide-angle lenses. And over time, I'd come to believe the hype. I'd decided that Canon, in fact, makes wide-angle lenses that are in some way inferior to the competition. I'd decided that the 24mm 1.4L that I've long sought was inferior, optically, to the Nikon competition. Enough people are saying it, it must be true! In a previous life (camera system), I used the 24mm 2.8 Nikkor quite a bit. It is, in fact, the reason I fell in love with that focal length. My frustration with my current crop-body (a 20d) is largely borne out of the combination of my love for primes and the fact that I can only get close to the 24mm field of view (of the 36x24mm format) with my 16-35 2.8L. I switched to the 20D from a D70 partially because, with the announcement of the 5D, I knew "going Canon" would eventually allow me to move to a 36x24mm format body. Nikon offerred no such upgrade path, and still does not (the other reason for the change was my total dissatisfaction with the 800 and 1600 ISO noise of the D70, a range that the 20D, and many recent-but-not-available-then Nikon cameras, handle better). A recent job afforded me the opportunity to rent a 5D and the 24mm 1.4L prime, and despite my prejudices against that lens, borne out of the taunts of many on this group, it was the best 24mm lens that I could painlessly mount on the 5D for the job, and I went with it. I kept it an extra day and did some of my own looking, and I came to the following realization. The lens is far from perfect, especially at 1.4. Corner sharpness suffers. Corner vingetting is noticable to anyone that knows to look for it. But the sharpness problems aren't too problematic, and the vingetting is easily correctable in any decent RAW processing software. The story changes as you stop down, especially once you get to 2.8. At 2.8 there are no noteworthy sharpness issues, and vingetting is minimal and, to my eyes, both are less than I remember seeing on the Nikkor wide-open. The Nikkor, we'll remember, is 2.8 wide-open. So by my estimation (which is hardly scientific), the Canon is better at 2.8, and likely as-good or better at deeper stops. Meanwhile, the lens has issues at 1.4 and some at 2.0, but this is an area where the Nikkor cannot compete, because Nikon's lens ends at 2.8. I'm aware of the 24mm 2.0 manual focus Nikkor, but I've never used it. Maybe it is an outstanding lens (I'd not be surprised), but it is hardly a modern design. The point is, the Canon 24mm 1.4L is as-good or better than Nikon's latest offerings from 2.8 on, and if you want to knock it at wider apertures, then you're doing so at the risk of ignoring the fact that it is alone in its class. I'm aware of no other 24mm 1.4 prime on the market. That indicates, to me, that producing such an optic, of any quality level, is extremely difficult and requires certain sacrifices. Sigma's 24mm 1.8 prime comes closest, but I'd imagine its sacrifices are even greater, and even it stops short of the "magic" 1.4 aperture that many seem to desire. The bottom line is this... if you need 24mm and a 1.4 aperture, you seem to have only one choice, and it performs admirably. Almost all of its shortcomings are easily corrected in post-processing, and it allows an amazingly shallow depth of field for the 24mm focal length. Those that seek to insult it do so in ignorance as far as I'm concerned. Canon's wide-angle offerrings are fine, even if they come under attack. Canon is making faster lenses than the competition, and if this comes at the cost of absolute perfection, then at least it is a sacrifice that one can choose to make, in order to get pictures that literally no other camera manufacturer allows. All of this likely comes off as partisan, biased, and even trollish. And that isn't my intent. I'd just like to let the less well-heeled Canon users among us know that they can continue to dream of a full frame body and the 24mm 1.4L prime without being swayed by all of the voices that are trying to put the lens, and the camera system, down. It may not be perfect, but it exists and does the job, and does it better than any of the current autofocus competition. Don't let the naysayers 'round here get you down like I used to be... it is all hype, and no substance, as far as my use is concerned. Will >I'll begin with profuse apologies for the likely fallout from this >post, but here goes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >24mm 1.4L that I've long sought was inferior, optically, to the Nikon >competition. Enough people are saying it, it must be true! Will, this shows one of the important drawbacks of usenet: the opinions you read on it may not even be worth the zilch you pay for them. A little time spent studying the form of the various runners and riders should help to sort things out. Some people are more concerned with grinding axes. >In a previous life (camera system), I used the 24mm 2.8 Nikkor quite a >bit. It is, in fact, the reason I fell in love with that focal length. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >range that the 20D, and many recent-but-not-available-then Nikon >cameras, handle better). Yes, 24mm is one of my favourites too. I was very tempted a few years ago to get a 24/1.4L, but it was a choice between this and a 35/1.4L. I could only afford one, and 24mm was already well covered by my 24/3.5L TS-E. >A recent job afforded me the opportunity to rent a 5D and the 24mm >1.4L prime, and despite my prejudices against that lens, borne out of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >minimal and, to my eyes, both are less than I remember seeing on the >Nikkor wide-open. Seems a fair assessment. I do not have, and have never used, the 24/1.4L, but my 35/1.4L is excellent, and the published MTF curves for the two lenses are quite similar. Yes, I have found that both the 24/1.4L and 24-105 L show more vignetting (sp) wide open than they should, but as you say it is a breeze to correct it, or reduce it to negligible levels, in RAW conversion. >The Nikkor, we'll remember, is 2.8 wide-open. So by my estimation >(which is hardly scientific), the Canon is better at 2.8, and likely [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I'd imagine its sacrifices are even greater, and even it stops short >of the "magic" 1.4 aperture that many seem to desire. Too many poor experiences with Sigma have put me off ever buying them - pity, as some of their recent products have been highly praised, but compatibility/reliability are also important. >The bottom line is this... if you need 24mm and a 1.4 aperture, you >seem to have only one choice, and it performs admirably. Almost all of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >a sacrifice that one can choose to make, in order to get pictures that >literally no other camera manufacturer allows. Like many others, I find the results from my Contax wide lenses (G series in my case) are better than those from the Canon ones - they have an incredible contrast and vividness that other lenses don't quite match (the ones for my Mamiya 6 come close). However, the differences are minor, and certainly not sufficient for me to go out and but SLR versions and use a clunky adapter. Any system choice involves compromise. Canon have probably the best long teles you can get, and the mid range zooms are good too. The wides are probably bettered, a little, by those from other makers, and other flash systems are better - but no-one else produces *three* excellent tilt-shift lenses! Canon's sensors have not been bettered for low noise, and their IS is very good - and they have an excellent affordable 35mm frame size DSLR. For me, it's a no contest, as anyway I have far too much invested in equipment to change, but I would not knock other systems - others may have different priorities. I'm sure if I had the same amount of Nikon gear I would find its strong points equally impressive. I am even considering buying an Olympus E330 for just one reason - real time LCD viewing, a real asset for macro and photomicrography. Horses for courses. >All of this likely comes off as partisan, biased, and even trollish. >And that isn't my intent. I'd just like to let the less well-heeled [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >naysayers 'round here get you down like I used to be... it is all >hype, and no substance, as far as my use is concerned. I do not feel that a balanced report of your own findings can be said to be partisan, biased or trollish. We need more of this, and less of the unsubstantiated frothing-at-the-mouth knocking from posters who are probably frustrated because their Mum won't buy them a camera. David  SignatureDavid Littlewood >> I read many people (Nikon-fans, mostly) on this forum that love to >> hate on Canon's wide-angle lenses. And over time, I'd come to believe >> the hype. I'd decided that Canon, in fact, makes wide-angle lenses >> that are in some way inferior to the competition. I'd decided that the >> 24mm 1.4L that I've long sought was inferior, optically, to the Nikon >> competition. Enough people are saying it, it must be true! IIRC, there's but one or two shrill voices that over and over bang on in one vein. Most Nikon owners are responsible and reasonable posters as are most afficionados of other makes. It just takes a handful to give an impression. > I do not feel that a balanced report of your own findings can be said to > be partisan, biased or trollish. We need more of this, and less of the > unsubstantiated frothing-at-the-mouth knocking from posters who are > probably frustrated because their Mum won't buy them a camera. I couldn't agree more, and I thank you for your fine efforts at providing real information. SignatureJohn McWilliams >> I read many people (Nikon-fans, mostly) on this forum that love to >> hate on Canon's wide-angle lenses. And over time, I'd come to believe [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and riders should help to sort things out. Some people are more > concerned with grinding axes. LOL! Exactly! And you're the main culprit for spreading misinformation due to your Canon zealotry. I love the 5D, but I also know that Canon is lacking usable WA lenses in its stable. I'm glad most people see through you Canon biased diatribe. Rita >>> I read many people (Nikon-fans, mostly) on this forum that love to >>> hate on Canon's wide-angle lenses. And over time, I'd come to believe [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > lacking usable WA lenses in its stable. I'm glad most people see through > you Canon biased diatribe. You must have an interesting definition of "diatribe..." SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > I'll begin with profuse apologies for the likely fallout from this > post, but here goes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 24mm 1.4L that I've long sought was inferior, optically, to the Nikon > competition. Enough people are saying it, it must be true! Uh, see my Subjective Lens Evaluations, Mostly Nikkors, at www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html (soon to be moved to -- www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html) where some outstanding lenses of other brands that I've tried are also listed. The 24mm f1.4 Canon was really excellent from f2.8 - quite an accomplishment (and I preferred it to Nikon's 28mm f1.4 and 24mm f2). The 24mm Canon TS also appeared to be excellent in a quick look at some slides shot with full vertical rise. While I think Nikon has often made better medium and lower-priced lenses than the Canon equivalents, the expensive ones can go either way (Nikon is usually more conservative with these, making excellent results easier - so the Nikkor 17-35 and 28-70, etc. are very hard to equal or beat - but with the very fastest WAs, well...;-). [many comments that are true about the 24mm f1.4 Canon deleted] -- David Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu www.ferrario.com/ruether (soon to be - www.donferrario.com/ruether) > Uh, see my Subjective Lens Evaluations, Mostly Nikkors, at > www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html (soon to be moved to -- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nikkor 17-35 and 28-70, etc. are very hard to equal or beat - but > with the very fastest WAs, well...;-). The 17-35 and 28-70 Nikkors are the only two zooms a 5D user should own. Rita >> Uh, see my Subjective Lens Evaluations, Mostly Nikkors, at >> www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html (soon to be moved to -- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The 17-35 and 28-70 Nikkors are the only two zooms a 5D user should own. Repetition does not make a statement true. Hyperbole works only so many times, so "Rita's" blathering gets discounted more each week. Signaturelsmft [8<8<8<] > The lens is far from perfect, especially at 1.4. Corner sharpness > suffers. Corner vingetting is noticable to anyone that knows to look > for it. But the sharpness problems aren't too problematic, and the > vingetting is easily correctable in any decent RAW processing > software. That's my experience to. But we have to remember that it is simply unrivaled at f/1.4 to f/2.0. Have a look at http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/final/24mm_final1.html http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/index.html http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/zf25_canon24/zeiss_zf25a.html and you'll find that you're not alone: it's the worlds best 24mm. Kind regards Mogens Hansen > I'll begin with profuse apologies for the likely fallout from this > post, but here goes. > > I read many people (Nikon-fans, mostly) on this forum that love to > hate on Canon's wide-angle lenses. Canebonics. > I'll begin with profuse apologies for the likely fallout from this > post, but here goes. SNIP (for bevity, but it was an interesting post) Couple points: The Nikon 24mm 2.8 = $600. The Canon 24mm f1.4 = $1600. Sure, some less well-heeled Canon users lust after FF bodies. It'll be even nicer for the owners of those cameras when Canon decides to make some lenses for them. :) >> I'll begin with profuse apologies for the likely fallout from this >> post, but here goes. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to make some lenses > for them. :) This from the guy who wants to compare a $3000 Leica 50mm f1.4 to a $300 Canon 50mm f1.4. I guess it's only fair when it supports your argument, but not when it goes the other way, eh? SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > >> I'll begin with profuse apologies for the likely fallout from this > >> post, but here goes. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Canon 50mm f1.4. I guess it's only fair when it supports your argument, but > not when it goes the other way, eh? I never compared either company's 50mm lenses. >> 6:48 am, "wiyum" <w.beck...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'll begin with profuse apologies for the likely fallout from this [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I never compared either company's 50mm lenses. NO, you just generally compare lenses that cost 2.5 to 10 times as much to Canon's. That shoe on the other foot doesn't fit so well, does it? SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > >> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > NO, you just generally compare lenses that cost 2.5 to 10 times as much to > Canon's. That shoe on the other foot doesn't fit so well, does it? The original discussion centered around Canon's less than spectacular WA lenses as compared to Nikon's. There is no need to go to Leica, Nikon and Olympus's old OM lenses are both better and they are used in addition to Leicas as alternatives to the Canon lenses. Just FYI, people use Nikon, Olympus, Leica, Zeiss, Contax and others INSTEAD of the Canons. Don't forget, these people are willing to sacrific auto focus and IS (if available) because of optical quality. That says volumes. >The original discussion centered around Canon's less than spectacular >WA lenses as compared to Nikon's. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >are willing to sacrific auto focus and IS (if available) because of >optical quality. That says volumes. There are people out there who are willing to put Bently front clips on VW bugs. There are people out there who are willing to adapt coffee makers into computer cases. There are people out there who are willing to tuen scanners into cameras. That people are willing to do things does not in any way mean what they do is reasonable. SignatureThe Dixie Chicks won the Grammy for Best Country Album on Sunday even though they are boycotted by country radio stations. You can tell the vote was held in Hollywood. The other nominees for best country were Cuba, Switzerland and Vietnam. > >The original discussion centered around Canon's less than spectacular > >WA lenses as compared to Nikon's. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > That people are willing to do things does not in any way mean what > they do is reasonable. People who find using different make lenses to obtain better images "unreasonable" are the same kind who buy off the shelf Dell computers and expect top notch performance. > -- >> >The original discussion centered around Canon's less than spectacular >> >WA lenses as compared to Nikon's. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >> -- I did not say using different lenses to get the results they want is unreasonable. What I said is that saying people do things does not mean those things are reasonable. IOW, saying people use different lenses to get the results they want is not the same thing as saying the results are better than using Canon lenses. Pointing to people who do things is not the same thing as saying the things they do is somehow better than the things other people do. otherwise, robing banks would be a good thing, because some people do it. SignatureAnna Nicole Smith's family and friends converged on the late model's seaside mansion in the Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. Hundreds of people are waiting outside the mansion's security gate, and that's just the line for the paternity test. > I did not say using different lenses to get the results they want is > unreasonable. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > otherwise, robing banks would be a good thing, because some people do > it. What you say doesn't negate the issue and facts that a lot of people are doing it and are doing it for better images. Rita >> I did not say using different lenses to get the results they want is >> unreasonable. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >What you say doesn't negate the issue and facts that a lot of people are >doing it and are doing it for better images. And I didn't say it did. In fsact, I went out of my way to say I didn't say that. SignatureAnna Nicole Smith's family and friends converged on the late model's seaside mansion in the Bahamas on Monday. It's chaotic. Hundreds of people are waiting outside the mansion's security gate, and that's just the line for the paternity test. > The original discussion centered around Canon's less than spectacular > WA lenses as compared to Nikon's. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are willing to sacrific auto focus and IS (if available) because of > optical quality. That says volumes. I think you're missing the whole issue here, Rich. While I agree with you that a lot of people use some of the other fine name brand glass for the sake of getting the ultimate image, some people have a large investment in Canon glass and don't want to admit to themselves that Canon's WA offerings are barely mediocre. Look at how worked up Skip gets when he thinks about how he'd like to own the legendary 17-35/2.8 Nikkor. He claims he's not interested in the old Nikkor because he won't be able to AF. Him using the old Nikkor is more to his benefit than mine since I'm quite pleased with the performance it gives me. He's so worked up that he's now throwing a tantrum wanting me to get into a pissing match with me. I don't like to play these childish games so I won't bite. This is something he needs to prove to himself. Rita >> The original discussion centered around Canon's less than spectacular >> WA lenses as compared to Nikon's. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > childish games so I won't bite. This is something he needs to prove to > himself. This is what I mean, "Rita." You fantasize about making a difference, but you can't, because you are unwilling to take the chance offered and prove that you are right. I don't want the Nikkor, never have, probably never will. But if you were to prove that the Nikkor is better, using unmodified images direct from the camera, I'd at least stop disagreeing with you. Calling me names, and saying I'm pitching a tantrum are only red herrings, meant to distract people from noticing that you are neither willing to put up or shut up. I'd like to know where the "pissing contest" is. It certainly isn't involved in me asking you to prove your point. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > This is what I mean, "Rita." You fantasize about making a > difference, but you can't, because you are unwilling to take the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > or shut up. I'd like to know where the "pissing contest" is. It > certainly isn't involved in me asking you to prove your point. Come on Skip, you're not fooling me, but I know you might be fooling yourself. As I said earlier, and you have admitted that you're just baiting me. I have no problems backing up what I say. I will do it on my terms, not yours or anyone else's. You're playing the same childish game Mark played. I knew Mark wouldn't live up to his end of the bargain, but I still gave him the benefit of the doubt. Like Mark, you are as predictable. Just in case you forgot what you said a couple posts back, "If I kill filed him, I couldn't bait him." Like the old saying, "Toby doesn't play these games." As for the images from the 5D with the 17-35/2.8, I'll tell you what Mark told me, "I'll post them when I get around to it." The difference is I will post my images. Rita >> This is what I mean, "Rita." You fantasize about making a >> difference, but you can't, because you are unwilling to take the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > will > post my images. I was baiting you with some of my comments, but not with my request that you back up your statements with something more tangible, like an unbiased comparison of the two lenses in question, shot on the same camera body. It's really very simple. And I'm not trying to fool anybody, unlike you, "Rita." SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> As for the images from the 5D with the 17-35/2.8, I'll tell you what >> Mark told me, "I'll post them when I get around to it." The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > same camera body. It's really very simple. And I'm not trying to > fool anybody, unlike you, "Rita." Right! We know, Skip. <g> Rita > Sure, some less well-heeled Canon users lust after FF bodies. > It'll be even nicer for the owners of those cameras when Canon decides > to make some lenses > for them. :) Why? It would seem Nikon is filling the need by making some really sweet optics for the old 5D. Rita >> Sure, some less well-heeled Canon users lust after FF bodies. >> It'll be even nicer for the owners of those cameras when Canon decides [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why? It would seem Nikon is filling the need by making some really sweet > optics for the old 5D. Yeah, if you don't mind having to use an optically questionable, Chinese made, adaptor and losing autofocus, that is... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >>> Sure, some less well-heeled Canon users lust after FF bodies. >>> It'll be even nicer for the owners of those cameras when Canon [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yeah, if you don't mind having to use an optically questionable, > Chinese made, adaptor and losing autofocus, that is... No worries, it's all about the final image. Even with the major hurdle of using cheap Chinese rings the old Nikkors still blow away Canon's WA offerings. That in itself speaks volumes of how poor Canon's WA lenses are. Rita >>>> Sure, some less well-heeled Canon users lust after FF bodies. >>>> It'll be even nicer for the owners of those cameras when Canon [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > offerings. That in itself speaks volumes of how poor Canon's WA lenses > are. Prove it, Rita. Give us a side by side comparison with the Nikkor and its Chinese adaptor and the Canon. You're the only one on any of these newsgroups equipped to do it. You have the 5D, the Nikkor and the adaptor. All you have to do is plunk down $25 to rent a 16-35. Pretty easy. Then we'd all quiet down on the subject. (By the way, the thought that no one else has stepped forward to do the comparison says something about your claim that so many 5D shooters are using the Nikkor, too. C'mon, all you Canon/Nikkor combo shooters, step forward, and give us a comparison of the two lenses...) SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> No worries, it's all about the final image. Even with the major >> hurdle of using cheap Chinese rings the old Nikkors still blow away [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > combo shooters, step forward, and give us a comparison of the two > lenses...) No. Rita >>> No worries, it's all about the final image. Even with the major >>> hurdle of using cheap Chinese rings the old Nikkors still blow away [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No. Well, that's succinct, anyway. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm To play fair, some reasonable comparisons have in fact been done. You can find them here: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/ This is a site of lens tests (mostly wides) conducted mostly on Canon full-frame bodies, comparing just about every brand of lens with every other brand. The site is full of examples where Canon lenses were found to be inferior to other brands (the Nikkor 17-35, for example, was held to be slightly better than the 16-35, for example, and convincingly so), but the Canon 24mm 1.4L prime was rather convincingly found to be just about the world's greatest lens in its focal length. This from a battery of tests that only began at 2.8, so that the playing field would be more level. After all of the dust settles on these tests, only the Zeiss 25mm 2.8 ZF seems to hold its own against the Canon lens, but lacking those extra two stops, and autofocus, and costing only $200 less than the L lens, it seems like the Canon is easily the smart choice if you own a Canon body. The site makes for interesting reading for anyone technically-minded that is willing to see all sides of an argument. I left feeling no less strongly that I really want that 24mm 1.4L, and feeling no less happy with my 16-35 2.8L after seeing it up against the 17-35 Nikkor, which certainly proved itself to be a better lens. If you can bear to see things as they are, warts and all, there's alot of info to take in. Thanks to Mogens for pointing this site out in this very thread. Will > To play fair, some reasonable comparisons have in fact been done. You > can find them here: > > http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/ I in the beginning of this discussion referenced this site and Skip blew it off as Nikon biased nonsense. That's really no surprise coming from a Canon zealot that likes to use baiting tactics for diversions of the truth. > This is a site of lens tests (mostly wides) conducted mostly on Canon > full-frame bodies, comparing just about every brand of lens with every [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > autofocus, and costing only $200 less than the L lens, it seems like > the Canon is easily the smart choice if you own a Canon body. I find all his comparisons and observations interesting. > The site makes for interesting reading for anyone technically-minded > that is willing to see all sides of an argument. I left feeling no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > see things as they are, warts and all, there's alot of info to take > in. One thing I found out is a lot of these results vary depending on which adapter is used. The accuracy of the adapter is probably more critical than the lens. Rita >> To play fair, some reasonable comparisons have in fact been done. You >> can find them here: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > than > the lens. That was one of my concerns, mentioned when I said the adaptor was of questionable optical quality. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >> One thing I found out is a lot of these results vary depending on which >> adapter is used. The accuracy of the adapter is probably more critical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That was one of my concerns, mentioned when I said the adaptor was of >questionable optical quality. Do these adapters have optics in them? If so, then I assume it's because that the EOS flange - sensor distance must be too large. Pity, as that would rather reduce the validity of the test. Personally I would rather see the test with a non-optical adapter, using whatever focus distance was the maximum achievable. Of course, one could always use a film body of the right brand, but then many would doubt the results were transferable. I was quite surprised how that the Canon 24/1.4 came out as the best (excepting the late-comer, which tied with it); I had always wondered if the ultimate performance was compromised to get the f/1.4, and the centre performance of this sample wide open looked dodgy to me. I wonder if the sample had a slight misalignment. OTOH, I have the 35/1.4 which has only slightly better looking MTF curves, and is excellent in actual use, so maybe one gets too picky when looking at lens tests. David SignatureDavid Littlewood > Do these adapters have optics in them? If so, then I assume it's > because that the EOS flange - sensor distance must be too large. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > one could always use a film body of the right brand, but then many > would doubt the results were transferable. The Nikkor to EOS adapters have no optics and are straightforward simple. The FD to EOS adapters does have optics. Sadly I sold my FD lenses prior to finding out about these. Rita >> Do these adapters have optics in them? If so, then I assume it's >> because that the EOS flange - sensor distance must be too large. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >The FD to EOS adapters does have optics. Sadly I sold my FD lenses prior to >finding out about these. Thanks for the information about the Nikon/EOS adapters; seems that these would in no way affect the optical performance of the Nikon lenses on a Canon body, so it would have been a level playing field. I do know about the FD/EOS adapters. The FD flange-to-film distance is unusually small, so a simple adapter giving infinity focus is not possible. Two kinds of adapter have been made. The common one is a simple extension tube - no optics, no infinity focus, and only usable for macro work (and very useful for that). The other, much rarer, one is a 1.3x teleconverter, and only fits a few of the more expensive tele lenses/zooms. No use for normal/wide lenses IIRC. The former, or third party knock-offs, is relatively easy to find; the latter one is as rare as rocking-horse sh.t, and for most people about as useful. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >> One thing I found out is a lot of these results vary depending on >> which adapter is used. The accuracy of the adapter is probably more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That was one of my concerns, mentioned when I said the adaptor was of > questionable optical quality. Yep, and this is why I tried three different ones. I've found slight machining and fit variances in all of them. Of course, they were inexpensive so I expected as much. There's nothing drastic that would ruin an image, but it's enough to find if one decides to pixel peep and dig while testing. Rita > One thing I found out is a lot of these results vary depending on which > adapter is used. The accuracy of the adapter is probably more critical than > the lens. Granted. Given this particular individual's penchant for sampling and testing, however, I have a hard time believing he hasn't gone through a number of different adapters and found the best ones for each lens mount. Speculation on my part, but it seems to me that anyone so anal- retentive as he seems to be wouldn't just use any old bargain-basement adapter. Adapter-accuracy is also a problem you go into this knowing you will have to deal with. In addition to losing AF and dealing with stop-down metering, changing lens mounts demands resorting to third-party adapters, a tricky thing to do when we're talking about optics and specifically backfocus distance. Taking all of those factors into account, I personally would have to see a massive quality distance (more massive than I observe in his 16-35L and 17-35 Nikkor comparison) in order to make such compromises. But I've had no complaints about my 16-35 on the 20D and on film, so maybe I have a better-than average sample. In any case, precise optical perfection isn't as important to me as ease of use in the field and the ability to get the shots I want. Tests like this are academically interesting, but unless one of them shows that a lens has disasterously low resolution or fatal abberations and distortion, it isn't likely to change my mind. I'm too busy enjoying my own photography to worry about anything that I won't regret when looking over my pictures after a day's shooting. But that's me. Everyone has his own tastes and concerns, and is entitled to his own opinion. Will >> One thing I found out is a lot of these results vary depending on >> which adapter is used. The accuracy of the adapter is probably more [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > retentive as he seems to be wouldn't just use any old bargain-basement > adapter. Could be, but I didn't see mention of him using more than one adapter when it came to using the 17-35, nor did I see mention of him trying different 17-35s and 16-35s. > Adapter-accuracy is also a problem you go into this knowing you will > have to deal with. In addition to losing AF and dealing with stop-down [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > about anything that I won't regret when looking over my pictures after > a day's shooting. You do bring up some good points and I agree that one has to enjoy doing this and/or get the rewards that make it beneficial. For me, at the moment Nikon has no FF sensor or and WA that work on APS-C. My 17-35/28 performs extremely well and I'm very happy with. On the reverse of my discussion with Skip is the 16-35/2.8 really isn't a performer on FF. I'm sure the 16-35/2.8 works great on the 20D, but the 20D automatically removes 35% of the image and tosses those pesky corners in the trash. I would hope your sample does perform well on the 5D. Rita > To play fair, some reasonable comparisons have in fact been done. You > can find them here: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Will Here's the bone of contention, "Commendable centre frame resolution from the Canon, less impressive from the Nikon." Less impressive? The example shown looks like the Nikon is out of focus. Then the corners, while better on the Nikon, are not good, just less ugly. And the examples of the Nikon (and the Zeiss) show signs of extreme oversharpening, causing more purple fringing than the Canon, a lens known for that problem. But that aside, which would you rather have, a lens that is sharp in the center, or one that is sharp on the edges, but soft in the center? I have no illusions about the performance of the Canon 16-35: http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900709 But the Nikkor 17-35 isn't the solution. Skip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Here's the bone of contention, "Commendable centre frame resolution from the > Canon, less impressive from the Nikon." Less impressive? The example shown [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you rather have, a lens that is sharp in the center, or one that is sharp on > the edges, but soft in the center? Given the examples from his test, I'd take the Canon at 17mm any day. I do think, though, that the Nikon's problems get better sooner than the Canon's problems (sooner meaning at wider apertures and focal lengths). By about 28mm, both are good enough that one should havevery few complaints about either. In any case, even preferring the Nikon's performance at some wider apertures and focal lengths, the extra millimeter at the wide end is one that I use alot, and the differences aren't such that I'd be willing to give that alone up. Throwing AF and proper metering into the bargain, I don't think any reasonable person doing the kind of field work/street photography that I do would choose the Nikon. As you say, the 16-35 has its issues, and the Nikkor isn't the solution. On that note, I've never experienced corner rolloff like you exhibit in that shot on my lens. I only have a film body for full frame work so I must ask... do you get that when you shoot film? Is this something I can "look forward to" when I finally get my full frame digital body? Honestly, I'm still amazed sometimes that lenses this wide can be built that resolve anything. Neither of these lenses is problematic to the point that I wouldn't mount them on an appropriately-mounted camera body. We're living in high times, optically speaking. Will > On that note, I've never experienced corner rolloff like you exhibit > in that shot on my lens. I only have a film body for full frame work > so I must ask... do you get that when you shoot film? Is this > something I can "look forward to" when I finally get my full frame > digital body? Yes, this was a problem with film as well and it's much worse with digital. If you see it on film than I wouldn't even consider using that lens on digital. I'm guessing that samples will vary and hopefully you have a 16-35/2.8 that is decent. Rita >> To play fair, some reasonable comparisons have in fact been done. You >> can find them here: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >> Will > Here's the bone of contention, "Commendable centre frame resolution from the Canon, less impressive from the Nikon." Less > impressive? The example shown looks like the Nikon is out of focus. Then the corners, while better on the Nikon, are not good, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Skip Middleton I compared the Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8 with several other lenses, here - www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm (soon to be www.donferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm). Note that in *this particular sample* (all were checked full frame, on film, with infinity targets), the center resolution was top-class at all FLs except around 28mm. It is not uncommon for lenses of this type to show sample variation - with relatively poor performance overall, relatively poor performance at some FLs in the zoom range, uneven center to one edge or corner performance compared with others in the frame at a given FL, or a generalized lack of field flatness which can cause the center to appear less sharp than further out, or the corners to be very soft with flat subjects (which is why I check with infinity subjects - it removes the variability of accuracy of focus that can occur at closer distances that may favor or penalize lenses with particular characteristics though they may actually be equally sharp for most practical purposes). I'm impressed with the quality of the tests at www.16-9.net/lens_tests (and the format is fun, too) - but sample variation can spoil the best of efforts. I try to show the range of performance on my Nikkor lens comparison site (at - www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html [soon to be www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html ]) that I've seen when I've checked more than one sample of a particular lens version. While there are no perfect lenses, and most WAs and especially WA zooms tend to be less perfect than the easier to design and consistently to build well longer lenses, the site above indicates that the sample of the 17-35mm Nikkor I tried was generally surprisingly good in the center wide open, quite good in the corners by f5.6, and superb center to corners by f11. That sure satisfies me! I think that is astonishing performance in any zoom that includes WA, let alone one that is this wide. The lesson again is: don't just buy and settle - if you care, TEST, and buy from a dealer that will take exchanges if you find faults that bug you (if they bug you when the lens is new, they sure will later on when they intrude on almost every image made with that lens!). SignatureDavid Ruether DRuether@twcny.rr.com rpn1@cornell.edu www.ferrario.com/ruether (soon to be www.donferrario.com/ruether) > I compared the Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8 with several other lenses, > here - www.ferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm (soon to be [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > you when the lens is new, they sure will later on when they > intrude on almost every image made with that lens!). Great advice and thanks for the links to your tests. I'm very pleased with my 17-35's performance, though I would like to try several other samples of this lens. My goal is get up a website showing how well the classic Nikkors work with the 5D. I know I couldn't be any happier or excited about the performance. Rita >> I'll begin with profuse apologies for the likely fallout from this >> post, but here goes. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to make some lenses > for them. :) Main point, Nikon's 24mm is an f2.8, the Canon is an f1.4, 2 stops faster. Speed costs money, whether you're talking cars or lenses. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm >A recent job afforded me the opportunity to rent a 5D and the 24mm >1.4L prime, and despite my prejudices against that lens, borne out of >the taunts of many on this group, it was the best 24mm lens that I >could painlessly mount on the 5D for the job, and I went with it. I >kept it an extra day and did some of my own looking, and I came to the >following realization. Another 24mm comparison that may be of interest: <http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/index.html> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.