Upload & Sell: Off
wayne seltzer wrote:
I would like to mention a few things:
1) Both the Canon MTF graphs for the new 16-35/4 and the TSE17 and Photozone mtf test scores show the 17 being sharper in the corners than the new 16-35/4 at f8 which is what i use most of the time gor landscapes.
The 17 with its much larger image circle is a more constant performer across the frame starting out in the center not as sharp as the 16-35/4 butb then not dipping as much as you go towards the edges and corners.
2) No one mentions anything about Distortion but the new...Show more →
So I have had this lens for a couple of days, and have tested it a bit with both close and infinity subject, as well as some field test with it last night.
1. point 1 I have no comment other than the lens performs very well at the wide end to the corners.
2. ACR does a much better job of correcting distortion for 16-35. I always use to have a slight wave to my horizon with corrected 16-35II and with f4 I dont. You do loose some real state from the corners as well as theoretically resolution, but I am with Dan, I just dont see it. I am sure its there but I dont see it. I also have the samyang 14. of course the distortion is a lot more with samyang. even there I dont see the loss in resolution by correcting it, but the distortion int the 16-35 is not really not bad.
3. I have owned and used the 14-24g on my Canon. unless you want to shoot nightscape, 16-35f4 IS is clearly the better choice on canon, and I would even argue on the sony. the Nikon is a flare monster, does not take filters, has a lot more ca, and you cant autocorrect distortion on a canon body (which seems to be an issue with you). Canon has a more useful range, and has IS, and in my opinion, having used both, they are optically very similar. Canon is that good. In addition you dont have to use an adapter on a canon body, retain AF, and not worry about the adapter screwing up image quality. the 16-35f4 IS is simply the best landscape zoom available right now, except if you need 2.8 for nightscapes.
4. I have done close forground checks on the lens, and there was also a brick wall test posted on the net with raw files, and the lens performs very well.
Now the lens does not do shifting. I have my tse 24 II, and I may hold on to it. certainly if you are doing architectural work, I think TS is great. This is even more the case at 17mm, where you want your sensor vertical.
Now, I did this hand held shot last night, 35mm f6.3, 1/13 iso 250
peninsula by kevindar, on Flickr
100% crop of left very near the edge
flickr-2180-2 by kevindar, on Flickr
here is also showing how it does for flare
flickr-2059 by kevindar, on Flickr
flickr-2170 by kevindar, on Flickr
This really is a truly fantastic UWA zoom lens, with prime like performance and IS.
Sorry for the long winded post