p.6 #3 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
The link shows the need for good lens on a camera with high resolution.
The Nikon Canon has different solutions regarding their TS, PC-E lens.
One reason that Nikon perform worse at the corners can be the fact that the mirror box is smaller in Nikon which reduces the possibility of a maximum optical solution in some cases
p.6 #4 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Mike K wrote:
Fred,
Done already but not in a quantitative manner. Its not very close and is the main reason I am not considering Nikon at the present. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3337603
Mike K
That's really nice work Mike - and a great example of when actual photography is going to give a much more complete example than anything I can do on a test bench.
p.6 #5 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Fred Miranda wrote:
Here is a test, landscape photographers would love to see.
5D III + 24mm TS-E vs D800 + 24mm PC-E
Mike K wrote:
Fred,
Done already but not in a quantitative manner. Its not very close and is the main reason I am not considering Nikon at the present. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3337603
Mike K
Thanks Mike. I'm not considering a shift to Nikon for many reasons, including the TS-E 17/4L and 24/3.5L II lenses, but it's very nice to know.
p.6 #6 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
zlatko wrote:
I agree. IS is nice to have on some lenses, but the lack of IS is not a flaw of the 24-70. Works great just the way it is.
+1.
I just bought the 24-70mm f/2.8L II (and sold off the 24-105 f/4L IS) and I'm just thrilled about how sharp this lens is, especially at 24mm. Great micro-contrast too. I doesn't miss the IS either.
p.6 #7 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Mike K wrote:
Fred,
Done already but not in a quantitative manner. Its not very close and is the main reason I am not considering Nikon at the present. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3337603
Mike K
When I wrote the 5D III vs D800 review, some Nikon shooters screamed "bias" when I was the first to report that the back LCD had a green cast and live view critical focusing was difficult to nail in the field.
Later on, I did some tests with the Canon and Nikon lenses I had in hands but kept the results to myself since I only had a single copy of each lens. That's why I suggested Roger for this task. He seems to enjoy testing lenses by the dozens!
I mainly use tilt and shift lenses and super telephotos and wanted to see if Nikon could offer me a better "system". I considered shooting with the Nikon D800, 24 PC-E, 85mm PC-E and 14-24mm f/2.8 lenses.
I tested the TS-E 17mm f/4L against the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 17mm and was surprised to see more detail in the corners from TS-E images interpolated to 36MP...
Then I tested the 24mm TS-E against the Nikon 24 PC-E and found similar results around the corners and when shifting the lens. On top of that, shifted Nikon 24 PC-E images showed high amounts of shading and CA. In the center of the frame, I would give the advantage to Nikon though.
I was really considering a switch but because I rely heavily on tilt and shift lenses and mostly use the Live View functionality, I am still with Canon.
p.6 #8 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Thanks Mike! A very interesting comparison. It confirms what I've understood about Nikon PC lenses versus Canon TS-E: Canon quality considerable higher (love that "old" 90 TS-E vs. the new Nikon 85/1.4! ).
I feel the same as a lot of people here, that I'll wait out the current offerings and continue to use 5D2 and 1Ds3 until a new Canon high MP body comes out. I think Canon is doing the right thing in prepping with better rez lenses in anticipation of higher MP bodies and advanced video usage. I'm not whining at all about the supposed Nikon dominance. I like the Canon lenses and body features and that isn't likely to change.
p.6 #9 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Fred Miranda wrote:
When I wrote the 5D III vs D800 review, some Nikon shooters screamed "bias" when I was the first to reported that the back LCD had a green cast and live view critical focusing was difficult to nail in the field.
Later on, I did some tests with the Canon and Nikon lenses I had in hands but kept the results to myself since I only had a single copy of each lens. That's why I suggested Roger for this task. He seems to enjoy testing lenses by the dozens!
I mainly use tilt and shift lenses and super telephotos and wanted to see if Nikon could offer me a better "system". I considered shooting with the Nikon D800, 24 PC-E, 85mm PC-E and 14-24mm f/2.8 lenses.
I tested the TS-E 17mm f/4L against the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 17mm and was surprised to see more detail in the corners from TS-E images interpolated to 36MP...
Then I tested the 24mm TS-E against the Nikon 24 PC-E and found similar results around the corners and when shifting the lens. On top of that, shifted Nikon 24 PC-E images showed high amounts of shading and CA. In the center of the frame, I would give the advantage to Nikon though.
I was really considering a switch but because I rely heavily on tilt and shift lenses and mostly use the Live View functionality, I am still with Canon....Show more →
If people do not understand the need for better lenses then it is pure ignorance, but Nikon has a handicap with its smaller mirror chamber, smaller diameter bajonette, this can be solved with different optical solutions, but the handicap is there. This shows in for example F-1,2 lenses and wider lenses
p.6 #12 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Fred Miranda wrote:
5D III + 24mm TS-E vs D800 + 24mm PC-E
When I wrote the 5D III vs D800 review, some Nikon shooters screamed "bias" when I was the first to reported that the back LCD had a green cast and live view critical focusing was difficult to nail in the field.
Later on, I did some tests with the Canon and Nikon lenses I had in hands but kept the results to myself since I only had a single copy of each lens. That's why I suggested Roger for this task. He seems to enjoy testing lenses by the dozens!
I mainly use tilt and shift lenses and super telephotos and wanted to see if Nikon could offer me a better "system". I considered shooting with the Nikon D800, 24 PC-E, 85mm PC-E and 14-24mm f/2.8 lenses.
I tested the TS-E 17mm f/4L against the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 17mm and was surprised to see more detail in the corners from TS-E images interpolated to 36MP...
Then I tested the 24mm TS-E against the Nikon 24 PC-E and found similar results around the corners and when shifting the lens. On top of that, shifted Nikon 24 PC-E images showed high amounts of shading and CA. In the center of the frame, I would give the advantage to Nikon though.
I was really considering a switch but because I rely heavily on tilt and shift lenses and mostly use the Live View functionality, I am still with Canon....Show more →
Fred,
Thanks very much for your candid summary; I appreciate the risks in your position. Similar to yourself, I find the Canon TSE lenses my most frequently used and creative landscape tools. Lens quality generally has a greater impact upon limitations of IQ than camera body, and in this regard the Canon 17 and 24 II TSE lenses are really terrific. Like yourself, I always use Live View exclusively with the Tilt-Shift lenses, usually with an external monitor: https://www.fredmiranda.com/smallhd/
The Canon implementation of LV with electronic first curtain is also an appreciated feature. Mirror lock up is a totally obsolete feature for me. Now that Canon has demonstrated comparable high ISO performance to Nikon with the 6D, I eagerly await the high MP, better low ISO Canon body.
Meanwhile I got a 6D to extend my night photography and have sent in my trusty 5DII for IR conversion.
Mike K
p.6 #13 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Fred Miranda wrote:
When I wrote the 5D III vs D800 review, some Nikon shooters screamed "bias" when I was the first to report that the back LCD had a green cast and live view critical focusing was difficult to nail in the field.
And then all the Canon folk screamed bias over the DR test.
p.6 #14 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
macrobild wrote:
The link shows the need for good lens on a camera with high resolution.
The Nikon Canon has different solutions regarding their TS, PC-E lens.
One reason that Nikon perform worse at the corners can be the fact that the mirror box is smaller in Nikon which reduces the possibility of a maximum optical solution in some cases
It also shows the need for good sensors. It is only fair to mention the color moire in the center of the frame with the Canon, the Nikon seems to be free of any moire
and why wouldnt Nikon be able to make a 14-24 which is as good as Canons best but not a great 24 TS?
p.6 #15 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
RCicala wrote:
Always unsharpened raw files for my tests - the various cameras do different things with jpgs.
I did 3 copies of each lens out of our stock, all of which had been recently tested and averaged the results (there wasn't a lot of variance, but I think it gives a better real-world picture than any single copy). I don't know if any of the three went to TDP, we've got several dozen of them and I didn't check.
Roger
p.6 #16 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
Resolution wise the Nikon 14-24 (a 100% centered lens) is unbeatable as a zoom but the lens is very prone to flare .
I tested one good copy against Canon 14mmMK2 and my copy was better than the 14Mk2 prime lens from Canon .
I also tested some weeks ago the latest Nikon 70-200/2,8VR2 together with my d800 and against my Canon 70-200/2,8 MK2 IS and there is no question about that the Canon was better out in the corners than the Nikon at 200mm. In the middle the Nikon together with d800 shows lots more details
A year ago I tried 4 different new 14-24 and all of them where bad at 35mm and all was returned to Nikon
All its about unevenness and to by the right one. And therefore I love RCicalas tests
p.6 #18 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
A bad batch, I was also surprised, but they who remember the Nikon 17-35/2,8 knows that it was a outstanding lens if it was 100% at the same time there where lenses sold who was less good, or the old Canon 24-70, a lottery to get a rely good one .
p.6 #19 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
skibum5 wrote:
And then all the Canon folk screamed bias over the DR test.
Not me! I believe Canon has a strong and urgent need to improve on their sensor performance.
That being said, extra DR is useful OCCASIONALLY when one needs to recover shadow details in shots with wide DR but poor resolving lenses affects EVERY shot taken with those lenses.
p.6 #20 · Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II: A Peerless Performer
macrobild wrote:
If people do not understand the need for better lenses then it is pure ignorance, but Nikon has a handicap with its smaller mirror chamber, smaller diameter bajonette, this can be solved with different optical solutions, but the handicap is there. This shows in for example F-1,2 lenses and wider lenses
IMHO, Nikon's biggest handicap is their continued reliance on the mechanical linkage between the camera body and the aperture mechanism in the lens. I suspect this antediluvian contraption is the main reason they can't implement a workable Live View system, and no doubt it imposes other design limitations as well.
