nazdravanul
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.15 #21 · EF 24mm f/1.4L II master thread | |
galenapass wrote:
nazdravanul wrote:
Anon Moss wrote:
Nazdravanul:
You state that, "The 14 2.8 mk2 will kick serious 14 - 24 butt in the WOW factor department. Colors, contrast, saturation, brightness , vignetting, will be better on the Canon prime".
With all due respect,
Is that subjective opinion or have you actual done a side by side comparison under the same shooting conditions? Or can you point us to a competent review that has conclusively demonstrated your claim?
I like the way that canon primes render images myself, and could make the same assumption that you are. But I would like to see proof.
I haven't heard anyone yet complain about the 14-24G's "Colors, contrast, saturation, brightness , vignetting". But I am willing to learn if you can point me to a resource where that has been documented.
Even if true...can't those issues be largely addressed in PP?
I'm not trying to start a pissing contest here...just being a bit of a devil's advocate...and trying to arrive at valid conclusions myself.
Well conducted comparisons and discussions like these help us all make better decisions on what to us for what purpose.
Cheers,
Scott
Unfortunately I do not have formal evidence (shooting under controlled conditions) to back up my claims. The only formal tests I've seen were those on "slrgear" (where distortion seems better controlled on the Canon prime, and colors seem to pop better) and 16-9 where aside the sharpness in the corners I did like the center resolution and colors better on the canon prime (and really hated the colors on the nikon zoom, the difference is more obvious for me in that test). Also there is another reviewer here on fred miranda (check the 14mm mk2 review section) who seems to have come to the same conclusions after apparently owned/used both lenses.
Aside side by side "informal" tests performed by me in my local camera shop on 2 different occasions, I haven't made any other personal comparison. Reviewing for many hours photos taken with both lenses on places like pbase and flickr left me really disappointed on images I could find taken with the 14-24 (I know this is not at all a "scientific" approach to lens analysis, and it can have a lot more to do with sheer samples availability, level of users knowledgeability present on those sites, bodies used etc.) - but his was another factor in my decision, as I have seen more spectacular photos taken with the Canon prime than with the Nikon zoom. I couldn't afford to own both lenses for some extensive formal and real world testing, that's why I had to rely on all available data I could find and make a personal decision based on that.
I may be overexcited by the prime since I only took possession yesterday and I love Canon L primes anyway .
And even if PP can fix/change/improve a lot of things the quality of a lens resides in what it can do before PP begins.
After reading what you have written here and looking at the 16-9 tests (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html)
its hard for me to agree with your conclusion. The major color difference that I see in these photos is the greater fringing that the 14mm L shows in comparison to the Nikkor14-24mm. Do you have an example of the superior color renditions that you are claiming for the 14mmL? Shots from the same camera with either lens mounted on the front?
By the way I shoot with both Nikon and Canon gear so I really don’t care which lens I will eventually buy, just interested in the best.
In the 16-9 tests I don't like the color of the wall as shown by the Nikon lens (I actually hate it in comparison to the Canon wall color) and I feel that the pipe, for example, or the interior of the pub have more depth in the color and more elegance in the Canon shot ( the blue roof cover looks definitely better for Canon). Also the color of the wooden benches/tables in zone A or the color of the wooden pillar in zone B are definitely more alive and rich for me in the Canon shots.
Fringing is shown only in the corners, area C for Canon, also were the Nikon lens is clearly a lot sharper. But for me color rendition and distortion are equally if not more important factors than pure sharpness in the corners for deciding on a UWA lens. Pure sharpness is not overall IQ.
And I believe I already answered your question in regards to image samples in controlled environment, in my previous post.
And back on topic : I can't wait to see the samples from the new 24 (:.
|
