Today I compared 3 lenses at 24mm. This was just a test of the sharpness of the lenses. Other aspects like CA, vignetting, contrast, colors, flare etc. were not tested. The aim of this test was to check, whether my new 24 TSE II lens has any faults and to help me to decide whether I should keep my 24-70L or sell it.
The test-object was the side-wall of my house. The test was done with a Canon 5D II on a Gitzo series 5 tripod with a burzsynki head, mirror lock-up and manual focus with 10x live view on the wall at the center of the image. The 24TSE was not shifted or tilted. All pictures were shot in raw at ISO 100, converted with LR with the default sharping parameters (25, 1.0, 25) and then exported to jpg with 100% quality.

The following 3 lenses were tested at 2.8 (3.5), 4.0, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22:
1. Canon 2.8/24-70 L @24mm
2. Canon 3.5/24mm TSE II
3. Nikon 2.8/14-24 (adapted with 16-9-adapter to Canon)

This is a picture of the test-object:

Holy crap...
That 24 TSE is sharp beyond belief...
across the whole frame...

These are 100% crops of the uper-left corner, the lower left corner and the center at f 4.0:

24-70@4.0, upper left corner:

thank you for the test, Bobu.

These are 100% crops of the uper-left corner, the lower left corner and the center at f 5.6:

24-70@5.6, upper left corner:

These are 100% crops of the uper-left corner, the lower left corner and the center at f 8.0:

24-70@8.0, upper left corner:

so whats the conclusion? the 24TSE is sharper than both others?
I wonder how the 24L II (or I) compares in this mix.

Thanks for the comparison!

I know people will say "But it doesn't zoom!" and they're right -- they should buy a zoom -- but that's simply a phenomenal performance by the TS-E 24 II.

Can't wait to get one.

Thanks very much for the tests; I know they're a pain to do!

Thanks for doing this. The TSE-E 24 II looks great.

I would like to see a similar test with the TSE-E 24 II matched against the TSE-E 24 I. I found the fist version a little soft, especially in the corners. I own the 45 TS-E and really like that lens though.

Max

epuja wrote:
so whats the conclusion? the 24TSE is sharper than both others?
I wonder how the 24L II (or I) compares in this mix.

Thanks for the comparison!

Yes, the conclusion is, that the 24TSE is the sharpest of the three, but the 14-24 is yery close.
I don't have any 1.4/24mm. Since I mostly do landscapes I don't really need an aperture of 1.4.

Best regards,

Boris

These are 100% crops of the uper-left corner, the lower left corner and the center at f 11:

24-70@11, upper left corner:

Your 24-70L is clearly defective, or misfocused in these tests. My old 24-70L was far sharper at f/2.8, and yours isn't sharp by f/5.6 in the posted pictures. The TS looks like a winner (and of course the 14-24 is no slouch).

EDIT: Even this doesn't look as good as my copy did, but still obviously better than the photos posted in the test here: http://tinyurl.com/madlso

My conclusion: the 24-70 looks just plain bad in comparison.

These are 100% crops of the uper-left corner, the lower left corner and the center at f 16:

24-70@16, upper left corner:

jvarszegi wrote:
Your 24-70L is clearly defective, or misfocused in these tests. My old 24-70L was far sharper at f/2.8, and yours isn't sharp by f/5.6 in the posted pictures. The TS looks like a winner (and of course the 14-24 is no slouch).

EDIT: Even this doesn't look as good as my copy did, but still obviously better than the photos posted in the test here: http://tinyurl.com/madlso


A missfocus is highly unlikely with liveview at 10x magnification. It could be that the sensor-plane was not exact parallel to the wall. But if this was the case then each of the three lenses should suffer under this uncontrolled parameter in the same way, because the focus-point was the same for each lense.

It could be that my 24-70 is defective, but this is in my mind also pretty unlikely. I tested my 24-70 against another 24-70 from a friend. His lens had better contrast, but the sharpness was nearly the same. I also tested my 24-70 against my 16-35 (Mark I). My 24-70 was better at all apertures at the whole range 24-35 (after this test I sold my 16-35). And, as I allready wrote, Canon has tested this lens a few weeks ago and I have a writen statement from Canon, that the sharpness of this lens was tested is within spec.

Best regards,

Boris

Wow, quite a performance by the 24TSE!

I think the 24-70 is a good lens and very versatile. However, I never considered it the sharpest lens in the box.

Thank you for taking you time with these tests. While I do think the 24-70L has better potential, that 24TSEII is remarkable. Thanks again for sharing.

Bobu wrote:
jvarszegi wrote:
Your 24-70L is clearly defective, or misfocused in these tests. My old 24-70L was far sharper at f/2.8, and yours isn't sharp by f/5.6 in the posted pictures. The TS looks like a winner (and of course the 14-24 is no slouch).

EDIT: Even this doesn't look as good as my copy did, but still obviously better than the photos posted in the test here: http://tinyurl.com/madlso


A missfocus is highly unlikely with liveview at 10x magnification. It could be that the sensor-plane was not exact parallel to the wall. But if this was the case then each of the three lenses should suffer under this uncontrolled parameter in the same way, because the focus-point was the same for each lense.

It could be that my 24-70 is defective, but this is in my mind also pretty unlikely.

I take your word for it that the shots were focused correctly. Your copy is obviously worse, then, than the copy at the-digital-picture. But in any event thanks for posting this test... I want a 24 TSE II!

Nice job on the test - and the 24TSE looks very nice. But... I do think your copy of the 24-70 stinks! Did you calibrate it with your camera at Cannon?

It would be nice to see real photos with your new lens too - I'm sure they are very nice as well.

ESC in KC wrote:
Nice job on the test - and the 24TSE looks very nice. But... I do think your copy of the 24-70 stinks! Did you calibrate it with your camera at Cannon?

It would be nice to see real photos with your new lens too - I'm sure they are very nice as well.

No, I did not calibrate the lens together with the camera, but I think this is only necessary with autofocus-problems (which is here not relevant because of the manual focus with live view).

I just returned from a two week landscape-shooting in Korsika. My plan was to take the 24 TSE with me, but it arrived a few days to late. My next opportunity for taking some real landscape photos with the 24TSE will be in august in Brittany.

Boris

Awesome from the 24 TS-E II, and if you want a superb UWA zoom, the Nikon is your answer. I've seen better from the Nikon as in these tests on a 1Ds III. Sharp corners at f/2.8!

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html

I'll be getting this TS-E lens for sure now. Unless I get the 17 TS-E.

There is something seriously wrong with your 24-70L... Get it calibrated

Interesting tests and I would agree your 24-70 is not right.

The 24-70 is a mixed performer, I am not really happy with mine, but yours appears to be softer than my copy. I would expect better results at f4, f5.6 but it won't match the other two.

The Nikon 14-24 is a very impressive lens.

Good comparison, thanks for posting.

Sean

Very interesting. I've similarly found the 17 TS-E to be rather impressive IQ wise. I'd say that between the 17 TS-E, the 24 TS-E II and the 24 f/1.4 II Canon some decent UWA choices for getting high IQ on the high MP bodies.

I agree completely. It's a great time if you have the money to invest in this new gear.