skibum5 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Photozone Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS | |
Various things:
1. 24-70 II definitely has considerably more 1st order lateral CA at 24mm f/8 than the 16-35 f/4 IS
2. 16-35 f/4 IS has more 2nd order lateral CA at 24mm f/8 (but this amount is much less than the amount of 1st order lateral CA the 24-70 II has at these settings)
3. 24-70 II fights off longitudinal CA exceptionally well at 24mm f/8, not yet sure where to place 16-35 f/4 IS but it is certainly among the better even if it should turn out to have more than 24-70 II, not sure yet in any case
4. if the main subject is on order of only 20-30' away, the slightest, slightest focusing changes, and I mean SLIGHTEST, can have quite a great effect as to what nearest corners look like and what farther corners or far away center top detail look like; this means it's pretty important to be shown all corners and center, if some test just picks one corners to compare, forget it since it could easily be a focus nudge as the lens performance itself, at least if you see all corners you can see if the DOF placement was a bit different and if far stuff seems crisper on one shot and near on another; I'm guessing if you chose a focus subject a good deal farther away, maybe 50'+ perhaps it becomes less sensitive to tiny, minute focus changes
5. I've seen some talk that the 16-35 f/4 IS has a weird tone shift, all I can say is it seems almost impossible to tell apart from my 24-70 II. Perhaps the older 17-40L and 16-35 2.8 had a different tint than the new glass. I don't have those to compare with at the moment. At the least, it seems to give the same color balance as the 24-70 II pretty much. Probably a bit less yellow than Tamron 28-75 tint.
6. 24-70 II has considerably more distortion at 24mm than the 16-35 f/4 IS when they are focused at the 25' ballpark
7. fully correcting for 24-70 II 24mm distortion when focused at the 25' ballpark does seem to rob away a bit of microcontrast and tiny bits of res; if the 24-70 II is sharper than the 16-35 f/4 IS then I'm pretty sure it's equal, at best, if both are fully corrected for distortion (of course many landscapers don't always bother with distortion correction) from what I can see
8. you;d think that mounting lenses onto a camera locked in place on a tripod would have all the lenses aiming the exact same way. but again and again, I've noticed while doing lens tests that lens to lens the scene tends to shift a bit. I used to think maybe it was just slightly knocking something, but I've now seen a consistent direction in change for some lenses so I think it must be that most lenses all have the mount or something tilted just a bit differently. I saw a clear difference between my 70-300L and 70-200 f/4 IS and tamron 70-300VC and I can see a difference between two copies of 16-35 f/4 IS, in the latter case I can see that one copy consistently has the scene shifted a touch vertically, one of the copies seems closer to my 24-70 II but not quite the same. I recall various 24-70 II not aligning up in a target quite the same way either. If the shift or tilt is enough I bet it also makes it harder to test things out evenly in comparison with real world shots. The difference can be enough that for a real world shot you'd want to slightly reframe your scene swapping between different copies of the same lens. I bet the body mounts are all slightly different too.
|