 |
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,950.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautiful Bokeh, Sharp even at 1.2,
|
|
Cons:
|
Slooooooow AF, CA's a bit pronounced. Price
|
|
Perhaps my favorite lens of all time is the Canon 85mm 1.2. It is highly regarded as a portrait lens and I could not agree more. It produces absolutely beautiful images with buttery bokeh. It is also very, very sharp wide open. It is my go to portrait lens. I will never part with it. I love it.
Recently I have found myself really getting into MF lenses. I recently bought the Cyclop 85mm 1.5 (very similar to the Helios 40 85mm 1.5). The Cyclop 85mm 1.5 is said to be the same glass as the Helios 85mm 1.5, but without the ability to change the aperture. The Helios and the Cyclop are know for their “swirly” bokeh.
Anyway, I did a comparison test and in it it tests the Canon's sharpness, CA's and bokeh. It is very revealing. The follwoing link is not meant to show the beautiful images which can be created with this lens... rather it is to show CA's, sharpness, distortion, bokeh, etc..
Link to test including sharpness, CA and Bokeh...
http://johncarnessali.com/lens-tests/2439
|
|
|
|
|
Tamron AF 17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp! Price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Distortion at wide end.
|
|
I have put together a lens comparison test of the Canon 16 – 35 L II and the Tamron 17 – 35 2.8 – 4.0.
I was in the market for quite a while looking for a lens which would satisfy this zoom range. I initially bought the Canon 16-35 2.8 L II, but was disappointed with the results. Not that it was bad, just for the price, it was just that it wasn't great. I was expecting more. So on a whim (had 30 days to return) I decided to try out the Tamron.
Summary;
The Tamron is very close and may even surpass the Canon in terms of sharpness when shot wide open – especially at 35mm in which case, the Tamron definitely surpasses the Canon. Canon beats the Tamron in regards to distortion, but ever so slightly. AF is better with the Canon - slightly faster, not significantly. Vignetting about the same. Canon has better saturation and contrast.
I had a hard time actually accepting my own test. I really wanted to love the Canon. This was one of the first times I had done a lens comparison with a Canon L lens and a third party lens. The price difference between the two was so dramatic, that I assumed the image quality would be as well. To be honest, I was shocked. Since the test revealed how close they performed, I returned the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 L II and kept the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0. IMO, the Canon is not worth spending and extra $1,000.
For full review and sample pictures showing sharpness, distortion, vignetting, etc.. click on following link;
http://johncarnessali.com/lens-tests/2995
|
|
|
|
|
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,350.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Super fast AF, controlled distortion for an ultra-wide.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price.. only decently sharp at 2.8, not great at 35mm
|
|
I have put together a lens comparison test of the Canon 16 – 35 L II and the Tamron 17 – 35 2.8 – 4.0. I was in the market for quite a while looking for a lens which would satisfy this zoom range. I initially bought the Canon 16-35 2.8 L II, but was disappointed with the results. Not that it was bad, just for the price, it was just that it wasn't great. I was expecting more. So on a whim (had 30 days to return) I decided to try out the Tamron.
Summary;
The Tamron is very close and may even surpass the Canon in terms of sharpness when shot wide open – especially at 35mm in which case, the Tamron definitely surpasses the Canon. Canon beats the Tamron in regards to distortion, but ever so slightly. AF is better with the Canon - slightly faster, not significantly. Vignetting about the same. Canon has better saturation and contrast.
I had a hard time actually accepting my own test. I really wanted to love the Canon. This was one of the first times I had done a lens comparison with a Canon L lens and a third party lens. The price difference between the two was so dramatic, that I assumed the image quality would be as well. To be honest, I was shocked. Since the test revealed how close they performed, I returned the Canon 16-35mm 2.8 L II and kept the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0. IMO, the Canon is not worth spending and extra $1,000.
For full review and sample pictures showing sharpness, distortion, vignetting, etc.. click on following link;
http://johncarnessali.com/lens-tests/2995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
