I took a couple of quick shots this afternoon to (hopefully) test out differences in my 17-35/2.8 and the 16-35/2.8 I just got. I also compared the 16-35/2.8 owned by another guy here on the forum, Girish.
These were taken at f/2.8 and ISO 200. I used f/2.8, simply to see any differences when wide-open. Shutter speed shouldn't have been a problem. I think it was on the order of 1/6400 second. Wow!
Here's a small crop taken out of the center, going off towards the right. In all pictures, I focused on the blue flame.
OK, here's some up-close-and-personal tests at f/2.8
Subject distance about 18" at 20mm
I didn't move the camera between shots, just replaced the lens. I also shot these again, just to double-check results, and make sure that camera movement between shots wasn't fooling me. I shot 16-35, 17-35, 17-35, 16-35. I'm just uploading the first two shots.
Clearly the 17-35 is the winner here. In the center, the sharpness is similar, but the contrast on the 17-35 is better. On the edges (esp. the right edge), the 17-35 is clearly sharper.
To compare flare, I took some picture of a setting sun (well, OK, almost an hour before sunset). Nothing spectacular about the images . . it was the closest place I could find to get the sun in a position to cause bad flare in both lenses.
I guess which is "better" just depends on how you like your flare distributed around the frame.
We should not get much flare shooting sunsets when the sun is almost completely down. However if the sun is still strong and in the frame, flare is very hard to contain with a 16mm lens...
WIll you compare you new 16-35 with the old one? Interesting results but the two 16-35 lenses appear to be identical in image quality in the first set of tests
mark1958 wrote:
Jan Yes they are in different light but the sharpness of the two 16-35s are similar.
You wrote the contrast on the 17-35 is better, but you tested it in higher contrast light than the two 16-35s.
DavidP wrote:
OK, here's some up-close-and-personal tests at f/2.8
Subject distance about 18" at 20mm
I didn't move the camera between shots, just replaced the lens. I also shot these again, just to double-check results, and make sure that camera movement between shots wasn't fooling me. I shot 16-35, 17-35, 17-35, 16-35. I'm just uploading the first two shots.
Clearly the 17-35 is the winner here. In the center, the sharpness is similar, but the contrast on the 17-35 is better. On the edges (esp. the right edge), the 17-35 is clearly sharper.
www.neonlightsimaging.com/images/16-35_28_1.jpg
www.neonlightsimaging.com/images/17-35_28_1.jpg
Warning -- images are over 3 MB each.
Close up tests wide open on a flat surface objects is not very wise thing to do, because the focal plane of the lens is not flat but spherical so the edges are automatically out of focus.
The radius of the spherical focal plane also may differ with differnert lenses.
Because of that also the short DOF will be a problem with these kind of tests.
Only qenuine macro lenses have flat focal plane.
You wrote the contrast on the 17-35 is better, but you tested it in higher contrast light than the two 16-35s.
I was judging contrast from the indoor shots of the newspaper. Same light for each shot there. Only difference would be that the 17-35 had a UV filter on it.
reittila wrote:
Close up tests wide open on a flat surface objects is not very wise thing to do, because the focal plane of the lens is not flat but spherical so the edges are automatically out of focus.
The radius of the spherical focal plane also may differ with differnert lenses.
Well, the lenses are *supposed* to have field-flatteners built into them. Apparently the 17-35/2.8 has a better one than this 16-35/2.8 does.
Bob
