Just received this little lens for my bday today, and just ran a quick comparsion.
i was never 100% happy with my 24-105 @ 24, usually picking 28mm+
only had a few frames with the zuiko enough to say, wow!
the £137 i payed for it, along with my new contax gear i am geting set for something, dont know what yet but hey
not sure how to post 100% crops as such, but you should be able to see the difference.
both lenses focussed at 3m f11, slight variation in exp as sun was in and out, white ballance equalled, a slight magenta tone to the canon, a slight bluey green to the zuiko.
canon left, zuiko right. center frame.
overall the zuiko gave a deeper view top to bottom with little distortion, canon gave slightly more width to the right with a fair amout of ca. http://www.sussexlandscapephotography.co.uk/24%20vs%2024.jpg
Which body did you used with these lens?
I have the 24-105L and Oly 45mm f/1.8, which I quite happy with both at the same range (5D + 24-105; GF1+ 45mm).
Did you focus on 3m to test some kind of hyperfocal infinity focus or what? Not that I'm a big fan of the 24-105 (had it and sold it) but it surerly can do much better than that.
as noted, lens testings is not my forte.
after years of testing and using my 24-105 i know where to focus it for its best performance from f8 thu f16. a 24mm lens at f8 @ 3m is the hyperfocal point.
to get best performance on the L at 24mm and max dof, that is where it was focused, 3m.
the zuiko after testing today i soon found that focusing also on the 3m range was its best posistion, eitherside of that just a fraction either gave a softer bg with no notable increase in foreground focus.
however, from f8 focused on infinity the foreground dof was ok, f11 at infinity was great and hence needed little adjustment (backing off to 3m was its best point) f16 focus on inifinity was also exceptional with no need to adjust to the 3m mark.
interestingly, even after reading the 16:9 review stating that resolution drops off quickly that was not my findings. i could not see any difference, other than a mere fraction of dof increase. i will not hesitate to use f11 or f16 for any ss requirements.
body 1dsmk2, found on fleabay, fleabay US has some ive seen as well
s
parsons wrote:
here is the f11 / 16 comparisons for resolution, the branches are both 100% very top left of frame, the other is a 50% as the pot wouldnt fit
f16 on the left in both versions. as you can see (hopefully) there is very little difference between the f stops
I see what looks like quite a large drop in contrast, along with some loss of fine detail, in the f16 photos (as expected for the aperture). However, judging whether this is a large or "very little difference" is somewhat a matter of personal taste and experience. Sites like 16-9 and many of the posters here, who have tried a lot of top-notch lenses, will often be picky about "small" differences that might not bother you at all. I'm glad you're enjoying the lens, please continue having a good day!
EDIT: are you sure the f16 is on the left? When I wrote my post about reduced contrast, I meant that the right-hand photos were more washed out; I wasn't reading closely enough.
Your rationale of selecting a hyperfocal distance which gives a 'best overall sharpness' is only relevant to DOF and is entirely subjective anyway. In a scenario where you are testing or comparing 2 lenses you have to focus on the actual point where you intend to make the comparison. In reality there is only ever a single point which is sharpest and that is the point where the lens is focused. As you stop the lens down this point becomes wider, up to a point where one subjectively decides it is no longer sharp, but is still sharpest where the lens is focused. So. If you intend to compare the items in the background, then focus on them. If you intend to compare edge sharpness then focus at the edges etc. The 1ds2 is a fine camera but it's lack of Live View makes such critical focusing harder. Yes, we are "Pixel Peepers and Proud" !
Your rationale of selecting a hyperfocal distance which gives a 'best overall sharpness' is only relevant to DOF and is entirely subjective anyway. In a scenario where you are testing or comparing 2 lenses you have to focus on the actual point where you intend to make the comparison. In reality there is only ever a single point which is sharpest and that is the point where the lens is focused. As you stop the lens down this point becomes wider, up to a point where one subjectively decides it is no longer sharp, but is still sharpest where the lens is focused. So. If you intend to compare the items in the background, then focus on them. If you intend to compare edge sharpness then focus at the edges etc. The 1ds2 is a fine camera but it's lack of Live View makes such critical focusing harder. Yes, we are "Pixel Peepers and Proud" !
On the other hand, both lenses were focused the same way, at the same aperture and the same focal length, so it is still apples to apples, IMO. The fact that the Zuiko is far sharper is not a surprise, though
contrast issue was more than likely the sun popping in and out during the test, will choose a static weather day next time.
dof is my major concern, as is the best point of focus. with the L i found 3m the best compromise all round, as i have now found with the zuiko, hence why i focused both at 3m.
so when i am out next time, i will know where exactly to stand and focus with my closest object 1.5m from me, 3m
cogitech wrote:
On the other hand, both lenses were focused the same way, at the same aperture and the same focal length, so it is still apples to apples, IMO. The fact that the Zuiko is far sharper is not a surprise, though
It's apples to apples of you compare the exact same points of the images where the lenses where actually focused, otherwise I don't agree as different optical designs can do strange things (complex zoom vs simple prime).
JohnJ wrote:
It's apples to apples of you compare the exact same points of the images where the lenses where actually focused, otherwise I don't agree as different optical designs can do strange things (complex zoom vs simple prime).
JJ
Technically, I agree. There could be minor differences.
But remember we are talking about 24mm at f11. Acceptable DOF is huge here.
I'm not saying he shouldn't try re-doing the test and focusing as you said he should. I just don't think the photos will look much different, is all.
cogitech wrote:
On the other hand, both lenses were focused the same way, at the same aperture and the same focal length, so it is still apples to apples, IMO. The fact that the Zuiko is far sharper is not a surprise, though
sorry missed your post as i was typing last night.
you hit my nail on the head. both lenes focussed at three meters and same AV, nothing changed, all tripod mounted and mlu.
i will try again this weekend, though have a workshop to run on saturday.
wfrank wrote:
Are you focusing with the marks on the lenses? No bashing just wondering what we call apples and apples here.
Happy b-day y-day!
yes that is correct. these where howevever checked against a known object measured with a tape rule and both lenes where very very close to the exact distnace scale marked on the lens.
both lenes where also racked back to there closest point then focused on the 3m mark to remove any slack in the gear train.
First, from Merklinger, on focus and focal distance comes the following:
If you want something at infinity to be in perfect focus, you must focus to infinity.
Merklinger does not agree with the concept of hyperfocal distance. He backs his opinion up with some serious physics.
Second, the Zuiko 24 is a gem, almost embarrassingly inexpensive, and is so small there's room for it in any photographer's bag. When hubsand ran his World Cup for 24s competition a few years back (www.16-9.), he id'd diffraction creeping into the Zuiko shots beginning at f11 - though just barely noticeable at f11. His conclusion was that the sweet spot for this lens was f8.
Combining Merklinger's opinions on focusing distance with hubsand's observations on this lens, I always shoot this lens at f8 and focus to infinity when I need something at infinity in perfect focus. I have never been disappointed.
Don't even get me started on the topic of Zuiko vs Canon color rendition...
PS (edit) Part of Merklinger's argument against hyperfocal distance is that the marks on the lenses are just that: marks on the lenses. There's nothing scientific about where the lens manufacturer puts the marks.
), he id'd diffraction creeping into the Zuiko shots beginning at f11 - though just barely noticeable at f11. His conclusion was that the sweet spot for this lens was f8.