didierv wrote:
I have the 16-35 mkI not supposed to be as sharp as the II, and by f7.1 it is sharp across the frame. I use mine for travel/street photography.
It is indeed quite soft at 2.8, but when used at 2.8, it is either in very dim light or I want to blur the background so for me it is not a big issue.
kevindar wrote:
Ben, I compared one copy of 17-40 agains the 16-35 II. the 16-35II had less distortion, better micro contrast, and definitely sharper in the edges/corners at f11. I know you already have the 24-70 II, and find it prime sharp. the 16-35II is not prime sharp, and if you compare it to your 17 tse, I am affraid you will be diasspointed in the corners. However, for my use, the corners are quite servicable. I recently posted a link to full size at 24 mm, here it is again, at f11. as you can see, the extreme corners are still not really sharp, but its only the extreme corners, and question is if you have important detial there. the edges are sharp 24mm f11
If you wanted to loan my lens for a while let me know, and we can arrage something, as with two young kids, I am not shooting much landscape, and can let go of it for a couple of weeks.
again, its not a perfect lens, Its very good and very versatile.
Thanks for posting these, they do look very serviceable. No sign of CA and the edges and corners look great. I usually shoot at f8 but could work with f11 and just have more dust bunnies to deal with.
For normal landscapes at standing tripod height, the nearest subject matter on level ground is just about far enough that hyperfocal works from 16 to about 24mm. This with a tight CoC like .015. If the camera is level, you can get a great image sharp everywhere except corners which are somewhat degraded even on the 17TSE. If grass does not melt into a blob I am happy enough. A zoom has lots of framing options too.
I will keep the 17TSE and have the 14 Samyang as well. If I did some trade for my 24TSE to 16-35, sold my 17-40 and Zeiss 50 I might still be able to swing the Ziess 15.
Your offer of a loan is very generous but I think I can make a decision without that. Thanks again.
Ben, there is Ca, its just part of my LR4 workflow now to automatically remove ca on all images. it works very very well.
I have not had much luck with hyperfocal distance, finding I get excellent close focus, but my infinity subjects appear many times to be slightly soft. so I find I usually need to focus a little further away, and find I cant quite manage near and far at f8. I am sure its a matter of my technique, but I shoot at f11-f13 for that reason. I do have all the same images at f8. the zone of corner softness is a sliver bigger at f8. If you want me to, I can post them for you.
your plan sounds very good. for me the ziess 15 is a lot of money, but that it takes filters is intriguing, and it appears to be an insanely sharp lens. of course would be great for shooting night skies.
kevindar wrote:
Ben, there is Ca, its just part of my LR4 workflow now to automatically remove ca on all images. it works very very well.
I have not had much luck with hyperfocal distance, finding I get excellent close focus, but my infinity subjects appear many times to be slightly soft. so I find I usually need to focus a little further away, and find I cant quite manage near and far at f8. I am sure its a matter of my technique, but I shoot at f11-f13 for that reason. I do have all the same images at f8. the zone of corner softness is a sliver bigger at f8. If you want me to, I can post them for you.
your plan sounds very good. for me the ziess 15 is a lot of money, but that it takes filters is intriguing, and it appears to be an insanely sharp lens. of course would be great for shooting night skies. ...Show more →
Hyperfocal calculations work another way. If you focus at infinity, the near acceptable is the same as hyperfocal. I usually shoot one at infinity, one at hyperfocal and one intermediate. Sometimes I focus stack them but subject motion usually messes that up.
Focus at infinity has been a problem for me, often I go a bit past infinity and end up with nothing in focus. This is easy to do with a 1DS-mk 3 which lacks a decent LCD and does not have the AF gizmo in live view like the 5d-mk2 has.
I can live view near stuff pretty well, but when the details get small like on a mountain, I am out of luck.
Great lens for crowded events where you don't have much space to operate. Used it to cover a Homecoming Tailgate Section where students were packed into a field area. Also great for fan shots as at the wide end you get that exaggerated perspective.
Just a nice balance of speed, AF, and zoom versatility. Don't use it much for landscape but I'm sure stopped down it would be fine.
The two copies I had had didn't perform significantly better than the mkI copy I have, so I just
stayed with the mkI. [Sadly, because good copies look very good.]
Thanks for all the information guys and gals. I actually have the MKI version of this lens.. I have the Canon version, but I guess I should have been more clear.
I use it for landscapes and some portrait work at events when I can't get far enough back. I was just wondering what others were using. I usually use this in conjunction with my 24-70 MkI for events... So I just was wondering what everyone else used it for to get some other ideas of where this lens could shine.
I use mine for landscapes, i like it. dont mind whenever the corners aren't tack sharp, as long as in can draw the attention to the center or the subject.
