Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #2 · TSE 17mm: acceptable performance? |
Viewing photos from excellent lenses at 100% is a bitch. I do it all the time.
It would help a lot if you could post some of your images, but in the mean time, I'll post some of mine.
Here's sample photos that I took late last year, to compare my 18/3.5 ZE and TS-E 17/4L, plus a few at the end that compare my 16-35/2.8L to TS-E 17/4L. The title bars at the top of each sub-window identify the lenses and aperture settings. The red square in the Navigator window shows where the 100% crops are located in the original photo. The images are from a 1DX at 100 ISO, on a tripod, LiveView MF, best of three, yadda, yadda, yadda...
I did these tests partly to assure myself that the 18 ZE "would do" as an alternative to the TS-E 17L, when the TS-E 17mm and 24mm are "too big", and partly because I can't help myself. I'm posting these images to show you a few instances of where I used my TS-E 17L in a way that you can compare the variation of sharpness across the frame - at least, at some spots.
Long story short:
1. In this case, the ZE might be slightly better at the bridge top than the TS-E 17L, at f/8, not at f/3.5~f/4. Does this bother me? No. Really (really).
2. They're both excellent lenses. You could argue their relative merits for IQ for many reasons, and for many years, but it would be moot - they're both excellent.
3. I've used many classic Alt wide and super wide lenses. I even still have a couple of them. These lenses blow them out of the water, totally.
4. If your're good at f/8, then you're good.
f/8 and be there...
P.S. I'll post the /f3.5~f/4 images later, if you want. Right now, it's supper time.
Edited on Jul 26, 2013 at 10:30 PM · View previous versions