The OM zuikos handle sun induced flare much better than all the Canon L zooms I owned, fewer lens elements help considerably to reduce the flare tracks when shooting close too/across a setting sun
StevenPA wrote:
Every dug-up thread deserves a pic.
Here's one from last weekend. 5D and OM 21/3.5 stopped down to probably f/11. Notice the corner sharpness, and what's more, overall beautiful evenness of sharpness across the frame. While I find the OM 21/3.5 to suffer in the corners on absolute infinity shots, there's no question in my mind that it beats the 17-40 at 21mm in situations when you want the lens just back from infinity because of an important, detailed foreground object. I believe this shot had me focusing the lens at around the 3m mark on the barrel. Further, compositionally, there aren't too many situations (i.e. keepers) when I want the lens racked right to infinity anyway. http://www.pbase.com/stevenpa/image/104591295/original.jpg...Show more →
I second httivals; the 14 - 24 beats on my 1 Ds-2 the 17-40 as well as the zuiko 21/3.5, hands down.
For interiors, it's just great, as that zoom has the big advantage of chosing the focal lenghts after the needs; jumping from 14 to 21mm, that would be a to BIG difference.
Here's one for the pixelpeepers, at 14 mm, screenshots only:
extreme lower left corner /extreme upper right corner, at 100%.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That looks very good to me if its a 100% crop. What is it?
Those are 100% crops, and something as unlikely as the sigma 20 1.8. I was very plesantly surprised as the-digital-picture say that this is a dog, this is at f/11 though.
I agree with brainiac, the 1dsmk3 is the great leveller. I won`t go on about the 17-40 on FF because that is back in the dark days
I sold my oly 21 3.5 when the Contax 21 2.8 proved itself, not only from IQ but there is a point well worth mentioning about a lens that has the aperture ring at the front. If like me( and most landscape photographers) you use the Cokin or lee 150x100 filters and use the Lee WA hood with there WA adapter rings that throw the ring back towards the camera body then you`d better have thin fingers to get down between the hood and lens barrel
brainiac wrote:
A good 17-40 is a very very good lens, especially if you don't obsess about the corners, and especially considering the price. I was quite whelmed by the results I got from one. I sold it as I also have a 16-35 mk2 which is slightly better.
As an update I should mention that I have now sold the 16-35 mk2 and bought a new 17-40. With DPP lens correction the 17-40 is a great lens, and suits me better because...
1) I have less money tied up in it
2) 40mm
3) 28-40mm range performs beautifully, and better than 28-35 on the 16-35mk2
4) I have other options to give me wide aperture with wide angle
5) it is smaller and lighter
The question is if you do want to have sharp corners on the bottom. IMO it is more important to have corner sharpness on the top of the image and it is much more important to have a decent sharpness on the edges. I doubt the 17-40 delivers good sharpness at the edges and sharp corners. Both Canon have a strong curvature of field and dont really deliver sharp corners.
StevenPA wrote:
I think there's a significant quality difference between infinity and non-infinity performance of the 17-40, especially in the corners.
I make you right, my 17-40 is a good lens for close in group type shots but give it a landscape and the far distance falls to bits + Ca. It`s a shame because 17mm was the ideal lens for my landscape/sky shots so now I have to make do with 21mm and then change lenses for 25mm and then change to zoom for 35-70 but most things good are worth working for and I`m sure my composition has improved.
I disagree. For one, 21mm lens can't replace an 18mm lens. If you need 18mm, there is nothing better than the Zuiko 18/3.5. It's has corner sharpness similar to the Zeiss 21 - but without the distortion, and flare problems of the Zeiss 21.
cogitech wrote:
No.
They are excellent lenses, but the CZ21 is in a class of its own. Recent results over at 16-9.net have shown this to be true, once again.
If you want "L" quality at the wide end, the Zuikos can get you there. If you want to see for yourself that "L" does not mean "uLtimate", then a CZ21 will show you. Hell, most 50mm lenses have trouble keeping up with it.
pdmphoto wrote:
If you need 18mm, there is nothing better than the Zuiko 18/3.5. It's has corner sharpness similar to the Zeiss 21 - but without the distortion, and flare problems of the Zeiss 21.
dont underestimate the Z 18mm it is capable of great corner sharpness and is probably a bit sharper than the oly, the Zeiss has also the typical 3D look, contrast is less high than on other zeiss lenses
Andi Dietrich wrote:
dont underestimate the Z 18mm it is capable of great corner sharpness and is probably a bit sharper than the oly, the Zeiss has also the typical 3D look, contrast is less high than on other zeiss lenses
I agree about the Zeiss 18, even though it doesn't have much of a reputation. Mine's on one of Pham's thin adapters, and yeah, I'm looking for a Zuiko 18, but between it and the Zeiss I'll only keep the one that pleases me more - and the Zeiss pleases me mightily. Greatest high sky lens ever...well, at least, so far -
Going to shoot prairie tomorrow, taking the Zeiss 18, the Zeiss 16 fish, and my Oly 21, plus the Oly 28 f3.5 for trail shots. Fall color in the midwest, clear blue skies. A day in heaven. I can hardly wait -
I agree about the Zeiss 18, even though it doesn't have much of a reputation. Mine's on one of Pham's thin adapters, and yeah, I'm looking for a Zuiko 18, but between it and the Zeiss I'll only keep the one that pleases me more - and the Zeiss pleases me mightily. Greatest high sky lens ever...well, at least, so far -
Going to shoot prairie tomorrow, taking the Zeiss 18, the Zeiss 16 fish, and my Oly 21, plus the Oly 28 f3.5 for trail shots. Fall color in the midwest, clear blue skies. A day in heaven. I can hardly wait - davidearls wrote:
There is a difference between the Contax and the new ZF, ZK 18mm lens. By now the Contax is obsolete. Fortunately we have several better UWA out there today
