Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm
  
 
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


I currently have 6 zooms that cover this range, as well as two more primes at 24mm. So I embarked on running a little test today.
the lenses are: 16-35II, 16-35 f4, Canon 24-70 2.8II, 24-70 f4IS, 24-105, and Tamron 24 70.
I also have TSE 24II, and 24 1.4II lens.

First 24mm:
My tamron and canon 24-70 lens, are both exceptional at 24mm. the L has a bit better microcontrast. of the 4 lenses that do 2.8, the 24-70's are the best, followed closely by 24L, which must has poorer new corners, and distant 4th is the 16-35 II.

At f4, the two zooms are again tied for first, with the tse a close 3rd. and 24L right behind. next is 24-70 f4. then surprisingly the 16-35 f4 and 24-105 are very close in the sides, with edge going to 24-105. the 16-35f4 has better corner. Last is agian 16-35II.

at f5.6, tse takes an ever so slight lead. the rest of order remains the same, and only difference is in the corners

by f8, and f11, the only lenses which are not sharp corner to corner are 24-105 (very slightly so) and 16-35II (a bit more so)






Aug 22, 2014 at 04:12 AM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


Sweet.

Show me.



Aug 22, 2014 at 04:15 AM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


I will do the crops and post them.. How did you do the squares side by side? use layers in phtoshop? I really like the way your persented them.


Aug 22, 2014 at 01:48 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


My 16-35 f2,8 mk2 was soft on the left when I got it. I sent it to Canon and when returned it was very consistent. I no longer have a 17-40 or 24-105, but they were always disappointing to me, and I seldom used them.

A well focused 17TSE is sharper, but in practice, I get more well focused shots with the 16-35 than the TSE. This is because AF trumps manual focus, especially on the 5D3 using live view focus.

I have found with all my UWA that it is critical to get the near stuff sharp and the rest will follow. I also learned to focus at the edge not the center.

My 24-70 f2.8 mk2 is the sharpest in the overlap but I will not switch lenses if I have the 16-35 mounted.

And it is used as a landscape lens.



Aug 22, 2014 at 03:17 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


kevindar wrote:
I will do the crops and post them.. How did you do the squares side by side? use layers in phtoshop? I really like the way your persented them.


Hi Kevin,

I open each of the four RAW image files sequentially, each in its own "floating window" (PS CS6). I resize one of the windows to the relatively small square that you see, which becomes a size template for the other image windows. Then I resize the others to match by moving a big window on top of the small one, lining up the top-left corners, and then dragging the lower-right 'resize' control on the big window up and left to match the bottom-right corner of the 'template' window. Then I move the resized window to a new place (e.g. right, or down), and do it again with the other two big windows. This is a piece of cake on my relatively new computer, but it took a long time on the one I owned previously (due to crazy-long lags in dragging a large window across the screen). If it loads your computer too much, then first do a guesstimate resize on the 'next' window, then move it over the template, and adjust size as required.

I size and move the "Navigator" window to just below the group of four panels (i.e. windows), and use it to help position the locations that I want to highlight in the images. I set each small window to the 100% view (i.e. each pixel in the image file maps to a single dot in the display monitor), using Ctrl-Alt-0 (zero), and then use the Navigator to position the panel within the image. First, select one of the panels by clicking on it, and then click in the Navigator window where you want the centre of the panel to be located. I attached a screen capture of one of my "working" files with the Navigator still attached to the four-panels, below. After a bit of practice, it's really easy to set the four panel locations very quickly. I can move the mouse to each panel and back to the Nav window, without shifting my gaze from the Nav window. Once the panels are all roughly positioned, then I use the up/down and left/right slider bars on each panel (window) for fine tuning. If you click on an actual arrow, the window moves only a small amount. I find it easier and more precise than moving (dragging) the slider bar thingy. Only the "active window" shows these controls. In the attached example image, it's the ZE 18/3.5 panel, at the bottom right of the four-panel matrix.

As I mentioned in the test thread, I compare at least three images for each test condition (lens, aperture, and scene) to get the 'best' one. I use basically the same process as described above to put up three, small 100% crop windows, and then compare different parts of the images at 100%, to decide which one is the best. I simply close the two that aren't selected, and then save a .psd version of the 'best' one. This makes it easy to quickly figure out which one I want to use, if I revisit the files for some reason. When I save the file, I use a name that includes the lens and aperture (e.g. "EF 16-35 f2p8L IS at f8"), as a prefix to the original file name that came from the camera. I don't use 'dots' in the filename (and so "f2p8"; uses "p" for "point"), and you can't use "/".

Once I have the PS CS6 multi-panel screen setup the way I want it, I grab a snapshot with "PrtScn", paste the image into IrfanView, crop the image in IrfanView, and save the file. If this .jpg file is too big to upload to FM (> 540k), then I open it in PS CS6 and resave it with a lower "quality" (i.e. more compression). Many of the 'original' 16-35/4L IS image capture files were a bit larger than 540k, and so I resaved them at "quality 11", where 12 is the maximum quality (least compression). I use PS CS6 for this, because it gives me the best controls, and I can do it really fast with keyboard short cuts - I probably could make an action to do this... but it's plenty fast and I usually do it on one file at a time (some don't need recompression).

When I have only three comparison panels, I put the Navigator window in the "fourth" location. When I have two comparison panels, I put the Navigator centred below them. In the past, I've included the Navigator window in my four-panel posted images, but I didn't for the 16-35/4L IS comparisons because I like to save the image-comparison files with as little compression as possible, within the 540k limit, and so I cropped off the Nav windows at the IrfanView stage. The example "working file" attached below was 674k in size, before resizing it to 539k using PS CS6 at jpeg save quality = 11 (that was close).

That's about it.

Give me a shout if you have any questions or comments.

Cheers,
Jim








Aug 22, 2014 at 04:45 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


thanks a lot. I am going to drop two of the lenses, likely tamron and the canon 24-70 f4. the max panel allowed is 6 in photoshop.


Aug 22, 2014 at 05:31 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


kevindar wrote:
thanks a lot.


You're welcome.

kevindar wrote:
... the max panel allowed is 6 in photoshop.


Not my PS CS6. Here's a 12-panel example. Each one is a different file and they're all open at the same time. I could do a lot more, but I have to go and stir the spaghetti sauce now.








Aug 22, 2014 at 05:59 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


I will check and confirm and include all 8 then.


Aug 22, 2014 at 06:44 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


Don't get me wrong. I'm not sayin' that you should do all of the lenses, I'm just sayin' that I'm not limited to any particular number of windows in PS CS6.


Aug 22, 2014 at 06:51 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


oh, by the way, at 35, the 16-35 does better than 24-70L. I will post images.


Aug 22, 2014 at 07:03 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


kevindar wrote:
oh, by the way, at 35, the 16-35 does better than 24-70L. I will post images.


Which 24-70L ?



Aug 22, 2014 at 07:12 PM
skibum5
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


kevindar wrote:
I currently have 6 zooms that cover this range, as well as two more primes at 24mm. So I embarked on running a little test today.
the lenses are: 16-35II, 16-35 f4, Canon 24-70 2.8II, 24-70 f4IS, 24-105, and Tamron 24 70.
I also have TSE 24II, and 24 1.4II lens.

First 24mm:
My tamron and canon 24-70 lens, are both exceptional at 24mm. the L has a bit better microcontrast. of the 4 lenses that do 2.8, the 24-70's are the best, followed closely by 24L, which must has poorer new corners, and distant 4th is the 16-35 II.

At f4, the
...Show more

surprising to hear, all the 24-105 I tried were quite noticeably worse at 24mm than 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4 IS AND 16-35 f/4 IS.



Aug 22, 2014 at 08:16 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


I know thats the reputation. The corners are indeed worse, but the not the sides. I will post images.


Aug 22, 2014 at 10:25 PM
skibum5
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


kevindar wrote:
I know thats the reputation. The corners are indeed worse, but the not the sides. I will post images.


Strange, that was more than reputation for me, that was almost a handful of different 24-105 copies tried and all doing worse at 24mm FF than 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4 IS, 24 1.4 II, 16-35 f/4 IS (very noticeably worse).



Aug 23, 2014 at 12:41 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


Jim,

On the 16-35/4 IS shot ... there's a fly on the fifth stalk of grass from the right, under the last rail car. The fly blinked and it bent that stalk back a bit more than in the other lens test shots. Kinda throws off the dof comparison for me a bit. Could you reshoot this please.



Aug 23, 2014 at 08:06 PM
kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


Jim, it does better than 24-70 2.8L II. the 24-70 f4L is slightly better than 2.8 at 35mm. I think the 16-35 is better than both.

I have posted the 24mm crops of the 24-xx zooms in the other thread. look on bottom of first and top of second page.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1313791/0



Aug 23, 2014 at 08:12 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 16-35 f4 IS at 24 and 35 mm


skibum5 wrote:
Strange, that was more than reputation for me, that was almost a handful of different 24-105 copies tried and all doing worse at 24mm FF than 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4 IS, 24 1.4 II, 16-35 f/4 IS (very noticeably worse).


I'm not saying my 24-105L is better than my other lenses, but it is good enough that I used it instead of 17TSE and 24TSEII that I had with me and had used during the day for interior shots at this company. The reason was I needed to move fast to get a number of angles, including running across a very busy road in rush hour LA traffic. I had enough confidence to use the 24-105L -- that's why I brought it on this assignment along with the other two, plus the 16-35/2.8L II we've been comparing here.

Sorry you had such be luck with your attempts. Perhaps camera compatibility/AF issues?

These are taken from sRAWs on the 1Ds3, PP in LR5.






  Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III    EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens    58mm    f/11.0    13s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  






  Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III    EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens    55mm    f/11.0    10s    100 ISO    +0.7 EV  






  Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III    EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens    24mm    f/11.0    13s    100 ISO    +0.7 EV  




Aug 23, 2014 at 11:39 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password