Boy, you've got to love the discussions on this forum. The amount of information that passes through here very day is just amazing.
There's been a lot of talk lately about 28s, and there are champions of the Zuiko 28 f3.5 over the Distagon 28 f2.8 (I'm one). I'm curious about 18s, a focal length not often discussed.
I 'll confess to a pre-disposition here. I picked up a Distagon 18 f4 about a year ago for what is now a very good price, and I love using this lens. I love the contrast and the color, and what it does with skies takes my breath away.
So here's the question: what piece of kit are you the champion of at 18mm? Contenders would have to include the Oly 18, the Canon zooms (16-35 MkII is supposed to be pretty good). There's a Nikon 14-24 that gets raved about, but for a Canon body it requires an almost impossible-to-get adapter (hubsand is working on this). Anybody have an opinion on the Canon EF-S 10-22 at an 18-equivalent length? Is there something else out there?
June skies are coming, I'm happy to post some images from my Distagon when the sky here stops being white. I'd like the comparisons to occur at optimal aperture, rather than seeing everything at one aperture. I don't know about you, but I tend to ignore sub-optimal aperture in the field.
I'll start it out with a shot I got in SC earlier this year. Not as dramatic a sky as I would have hoped for, and not everything the lens is capable of - but it's a start.
For a fixed focal length 18mm lens for landscape the Zuiko 18/3.5 would be (and was) my first choice. It's small, light, sharp to the corners, with great color, and medium contrast. I carried mine around in my kit at all times and was hardly noticed when not used. The Zeiss 18mm is a little sharper in the center, but softer in the corners. It's also larger, heavier, will hit the mirror on many 5D's without a mirror mod, and can be tough to match with an adapter for optimal performance. I'm also not a fan of Zeiss' heavy shadow contrast.
I have the Nikon 12-24G lens, which does not *require* one of Mark's G adapter. The adapter does make aperture adjustments easier, but its implementation is hardly optimal. The Nikon 12-24G is a great lens optically, but the size and weight are definate cons. The biggest advantage of the Nikon 12-24G is the f/2.8 aperture across the range, and the great performance from wide open.
While we are asking for samples, I'd love to see definitive evidence of the Zuiko 18/3.5 corner performance. I've never seen a single image that confirms that. I've seen plenty of amazing stuff with the lens from the likes of Hrannar and Simon Kennedy, but never a corner crop.
My choice at this focal length is the Tamron SP 17/3.5, and I'll be happy to post as many corner crops as you can handle.
I've posted my Zuiko 18/3.5 pics a few times. Others have as well. In fact, mine and some others were reposted just a few months ago. I thought I rememer you saying you saw a hair of CA in the extreme corner?
I still have a Tamrom 17/3.5, with the orignal Tamron Adaptal EOS mount. It's the third and best copy I've sampled. While it is a very good and usable super wide, it doesn't compare to a good Oly 18/3.5 - for color, contrast, or edge/corner sharpness. I saw one sample you posted at f11, and it wasn't too demanding as far as resolution or high contrast in the corners. That's what really sets a good and superb SWA apart, in my book. By the way - I just took pics of my Tamron 17/3.5 last night (along with some other alt lenses), they will be posted soon on the B&S forum. So I have every reason to talk that lens up right now
cogitech wrote:
While we are asking for samples, I'd love to see definitive evidence of the Zuiko 18/3.5 corner performance. I've never seen a single image that confirms that. I've seen plenty of amazing stuff with the lens from the likes of Hrannar and Simon Kennedy, but never a corner crop.
My choice at this focal length is the Tamron SP 17/3.5, and I'll be happy to post as many corner crops as you can handle.
Yes, I do remember that sample you posted, now. Although, I remember questioning whether it was an extreme corner crop or not.
Anyway, I find the Tamron 17/3.5 all that I need. For $150, how can you go wrong? Here's some more crops. Again, it isn't CZ21-like anywhere in the frame, but it is quite consistent and holds out fairly good into the corners and shows very little CA. Although, it does have some non-linear (wave-form) distortion, which is visible here (so it is CZ21-like, in a way):
I'll definitely second the Tamron 17mm f3.5 and for the $$$'s this lens is hard to beat.
I found mine brand new in the box and ended up getting the Contax 17-35mm f2.8 N at the same time. So the Tamron never saw much use. But I would definitely take it over the Olympus which seems to be way overpriced.
Overpriced is a relative term. The same could be said for the Contax 17-35mm. Photographers who want the best results are willing to pay to get them. The Tamron is good stopped down considerably, but the Zuiko is much better from wide open.
I'm hearing lots of speculation here, but has anyone else actually owned both at the same time? Like I said, I've owned three of the Tamron 17's (and tested two against the Zuiko) - so it's not a copy issue. In fact, I think my Tamron 17 is sharper than yours , but the Tamron can't capture the same amount of detail at any aperture.
Here are my crops from the Zuiko 18/3.5 (which I no longer own, so there is no reason for me to talk it up)
Paul, you mention the Nikon 12–24 G, and you say that it is sharp wide open at ƒ2.8. Which lens are you referring to, exactly?
Googling, I got this hit, on DPReview:
Pre-PMA 2003, 15:00 TOKYO: Nikon has today confirmed the details of their first digital only lens, the Nikkor AF-S DX 12 - 24 mm F4.0
Are you referring to this lens, or the 14–24/2.8 that I have—which definitely is sharp wide open? Did I miss something?
I tested the 12–24/4 Nikkor against the Tokina 12–24 in DX-sensor-only days, and the latter blew it away, frankly. Probably a copy variation problem (poor Nikkor; great Tokina), but I was surprised at the difference. Cheers, KL
cogitech wrote:
Yes, I do remember that sample you posted, now. Although, I remember questioning whether it was an extreme corner crop or not.
Anyway, I find the Tamron 17/3.5 all that I need. For $150, how can you go wrong? Here's some more crops. Again, it isn't CZ21-like anywhere in the frame, but it is quite consistent and holds out fairly good into the corners and shows very little CA. Although, it does have some non-linear (wave-form) distortion, which is visible here (so it is CZ21-like, in a way):
A tiny bit of smudge in the very extreme corners, but crop it back to 18mm and it's gone....Show more →
I am really mystified! WHAT is thje upper left building. These morning eyes see a totally different perspective in that brown building. Was it falling down?
Maybe time for an eye checkup for me-looks like it is falling down!
gogopix wrote:
I am really mystified! WHAT is thje upper left building. These morning eyes see a totally different perspective in that brown building. Was it falling down?
Maybe time for an eye checkup for me-looks like it is falling down!
Victor
Not to worry. Your eyes are fine.
No doubt the building is still standing. Even shooting portrait there's distortion as you move to the edge on an 18. Not typically used for architectural work for this reason.
The distortion is one of the reasons that 18s take such spectacular pictures of skies -
Personally I am not sure about that Tamron lens based on these examples. I don't normally get involved in testing and so on, but here is a few crops from a shot from my Zuiko 18mm. It looks to me like it is substantially sharper than the tamron, with much lower distortion. But then it costs much more so I suppose you would expect that. Perhaps I am missing something here...
Top left (I know there is nothing in the extreme corner - sorry I am not a lens tester.
Bottom right
Centre
These are completely unsharpened in any way, they look much crisper with a little USM. On the 5d at f11.
Another nice thing about this lens is the lowish contrast, meaning you can capture a little extra DR and put the contrast where you like.
, but the Tamron can't capture the same amount of detail at any aperture.
WHAT is thje upper left building. These morning eyes see a totally different perspective in that brown building. Was it falling down?
