brainiac Offline Dedicated FM Account Locked
|
p.16 #7 · EF 24mm f/1.4L II master thread | |
PetKal wrote:
brainiac wrote:
so why did Canon sacrifice design currency for that, when it could have made a much sharper lens at the cost of more distortion?
Brainiac....let me venture a guess: either you do not own a 24L, or the one you use is knackered.
Be that as it may, we seem to be but a short step from starting to slam a lens (viz. 24L II) that very few have had in their hands as of now, let alone have tested it, all based on a report which says that a Nikon zoom is sharper than 14L.
Damn, that's rich, even without considering that Hubsand might have had a dudley 14L specimen. Now then, if so, Canon indeed deserves slamming for that, as we are dutifully doing it anyway on a daily basis here.
Sorry - I didn't make it clear that I was talking about the 14L II, not the 24. The 14L II hubsand used for the test was brand new and performed extremely well. All other examples of the 14L2 that I have seen also show that it has muddy corners, in exactly the way that hubsand's test shows. The lens was not anomalous. Don't get me wrong: it's a wonderful lens. It's just that the Nikon 14-24, miraculously, is significantly better in the corners, and corners matter in a lens like this, else you would use a 21mm. Nobody is 'slamming' the lens. hubsand's crops are plain to see. My observation is that the 14mk2 is very good, but might have been much better, perhaps even as sharp as the 14-24, if Canon had given up the design goal of zero distortion, since distortion can be fixed in post.
BTW, as regards your comment that my opinion was 'based on a report', I should tell you that I was with hubsand that day when he did his test, and so were two other FM'ers. Hubsand is a fastidious tester who has done this community of serious photographers a great service over the years by kindly sharing his findings. I'm more inclined to trust hubsand's findings than anyone else's.
|