cineski wrote:
Why would f/8 on a 1.4 prime be any different than f/8 on a 2.8 zoom/prime? f/8 is f/8, no?
sometimes really fast lenses are designed to reach peak sharpness/contrast/least CA earlier than slower lenses, maybe it peaks at f/4-f/5 while some other lens peaks at f/6.3 and is closer to peak at f/8.
not always though and sometimes it's just f/5.6 vss. f/6.3 which is not anything to notice
I would expect better performance from a modern prime at f8 than a zoom used at the same focal length. Zooms have more elements than primes, and these elements must be moved around in precise groups throughout the zoom range, this has got to introduce some variability in the image quality produced. By f8 the difference may be small, but in principle a good prime MUST beat a good zoom, although you may well have to pixel peep to see the difference!
Yes, the difference is likely to be pretty negligible between the prime and zoom at f8, but at f2.8? I've owned alot of fast primes, and understand the compromises that a fast aperture imposes, especially for wides, but equally it seems to me that zooms are really designed to be used stopped down, precisely in that range where it is easiest for the designers to achieve best results. For example I have often read that the Canon 17-40 is wonderful over the range f11-16, but I need a prime that its wonderful at f1.4. Much harder to achieve! Maybe thats what the 24L Mk2 is designed to do. My existing 24L is super at f2, and a bit hit and miss at f1.4. I'll be judging the new 24L exclusively on its f1.4 performance because lens speed its everything to me.
I think we are in a dilemma here, Canon is continuing to update its film lenses (like my 24L mk1 and your 35L) to digital. It remains to be seen just how much better the new 24L is. If it is clearly better at f1.4-2 I will reluctantly have to buy one (my reluctance is due to financial constraints, this year I am budgeting for the 5D2 already!), but if the difference is relatively modest I will divert the money into a 35L Mk2 which must come soon (I have the consumer 35/2 which will tide me over for now).
Aside from macro I am always wide open or very close to that. Don't get me wrong, the 35/1.4 is very good at 1.4 (significantly better than the 50/1.4) but when you compare wide open to wide open, the 17-55/2.8 IS is slightly better. And it has IS. And it can zoom.
Yakim Peled wrote:
In principal? Yes. In practice? Well, I'm still searching for a prime to beat my 17-55/2.8 IS. Even the mighty 35/1.4 can't do that.
Yakim , the 17-55 is not nearly as good as the 35 1.4 at 1.4. Thats one of the major reason people buy the 35 . Not for its performance at 2.8 but at 1.4
jimo1015 wrote:
Yakim , the 17-55 is not nearly as good as the 35 1.4 at 1.4. Thats one of the major reason people buy the 35 . Not for its performance at 2.8 but at 1.4
jim
With all due respect, I have both. Besides, see Luis' post above. I am not alone.
I think we will be fine, judging by the recent updates e.g. 14L II, 85L II, 16-35L II, 70-200/4 IS, etc. Let's hope the increase in performance on the 24L II is more significant than the previous updates, and it will be better than the Nikon 14-24 at 24mm. I would be disappointed if it isn't .... even though I will most likely end up with the ZE 21 Distagon. As a Canon shooter and semi-gearhead, I would be embarrassed if my Canon "digital prime" is not even as good as a Nikon zoom lens!
David Baldwin wrote:
I think we are in a dilemma here, Canon is continuing to update its film lenses (like my 24L mk1 and your 35L) to digital. It remains to be seen just how much better the new 24L is. If it is clearly better at f1.4-2 I will reluctantly have to buy one (my reluctance is due to financial constraints, this year I am budgeting for the 5D2 already!), but if the difference is relatively modest I will divert the money into a 35L Mk2 which must come soon (I have the consumer 35/2 which will tide me over for now).
Well, you know I definitively decided last week to stay with Canon and finally move away from Nikon, so I am sure no one will think I am a mindless Nikon fanboi but:
- that Nikkor 14-24 in every test I have seen absolutely toasts any opposition. In its focal length, and among the Japaneses manufacturers, it seems top dog at present, whether zoom or prime. Haven't seen any comparisions with the new Zeiss 18mm though.
At present my shopping list is:
This year: 5D2
Next year: either 24L Mk2 or 35L Mk2
Year after: Zeiss 18mm for Canon
David Baldwin:
...but equally it seems to me that zooms are really designed to be used stopped down
Neither 17-55 f/2.8 IS nor 70-200 f/4.0 L IS needs to be stopped down for excellent results. Both are very good wide open, rivaling the results from a stopped down prime.
There is a Zeiss 3.5/18mm in the ZF and ZK mounts, so I think it's a matter of months before it becomes available in the ZE mount.
I can accept that the Nikon 14-24mm is without a peer, but I think it's very doable and possible for the 24/1.4L II to have better IQ than the Nikon zoom. We will find out soon enough.
Yakim Peled wrote:
With all due respect, I have both. Besides, see Luis' post above. I am not alone.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I think he may have meant that the 17-55 isn't as good as the 35 at 1.4, simply because the 17-55 doesn't go to 1.4. Being an owner of both (and the 24L), I agree with that statement - when the light gets low then 1.4 wins, regardless how nice a picture would be two stops stopped down at f2.8. IS won't help with subject motion blur...
stanj wrote:
I think he may have meant that the 17-55 isn't as good as the 35 at 1.4, simply because the 17-55 doesn't go to 1.4. Being an owner of both (and the 24L), I agree with that statement - when the light gets low then 1.4 wins, regardless how nice a picture would be two stops stopped down at f2.8. IS won't help with subject motion blur...
