This topic is in the 2014 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2014Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
p.1 #1Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Lens tests: Oly 18/3.5 OM, EF 16-35L II, TS-E 17/4L, and CZ 18/3.5 ZE
The following four lenses were tested, as shown from left to right in the attached image.
Olympus 18mm f/3.5 OM
Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 ZE
Canon TS-E 17/4L
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
The following four lenses were tested, as shown from left to right in the attached image.
Olympus 18mm f/3.5 OM
Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 ZE
Canon TS-E 17/4L
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II
Jan 17, 2014 at 09:49 AM
p.1 #2Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
The lens test results are separated into four sections, each with a separate post (or two) and example images.
A. Flare, at f/8
B. Vignetting, wide open and at f/8
C. Sharpness and IQ, Set 1, Halifax seen from Dartmouth (side lit, sun almost in image), f/8
D. Sharpness and IQ, Set 2, Halifax grain evelator (backlit), f/8
The photos were taken with a 6D, ISO 100, at f/8 (except for the wide-open vignetting images), on a tripod using manual focus LiveView (electronic first curtain shutter) with a 2 sec. timer delay for shutter release. For each lens and test subject, three different images were taken and then later, the "best of three" was selected. For each lens, all 100% crops were selected from the same image (i.e. the "best of three" image); rather than selecting the best left corner from one, and the best centre from another; and, yadda yadda, yadda. The only post processing was to use PS CS6 "auto-contrast" on each image, plus a special treatment to brighten a shadow area in Section D, as discussed later.
Most of the following comparison images have five panels:
1. top left 100% crop for Oly 21/3.5
2. top right 100% crop for EF 16-35/2.8L II
3. middle left 100% crop for TS-E 17/4L
4. middle right 100% crop for CZ 18/3.5 ZE
5. bottom centre, PS CS6 Navigator window, red square shows location of 100% crops.
The window names identify the lens, taking aperture, and image file name.
Summary of Results
Flare at f/8
The TS-E 71/4L has none for these examples, the EF 16-35/2.8L II is next best, then the CZ 18/3.5 ZE, and last the Oly 21/3.5 OM.
Vignetting wide open and f/8
The EF 16-35/2.8L II is best (!), then the TS-E 17/4L, then CZ 18/3.5 ZE, and last is the Oly 21/3.5 OM.
Sharpness & IQ
The TS-E 17/4L is generally the best, especially in extreme corners, but the CZ 18/3.5 ZE and EF 16-35/2.8L II are not at all far behind, over most of the image frame. I'm very pleasantly surprised by the excellent results from the EF 16-35/2.8L II.
The Olympus 18/3.5 is extremely good, but its IQ is not as good as the newer lenses, away from the central part of the image. OTOH, the Oly 18/3.5 IQ is much closer to its "excellent competitors" than are the Oly 21/3.5 and 24/2.8, with respect to their own "excellent competitors" (e.g. CZ 21/2.8 ZE and TS-E 24/3.5L II). Many people are very happy with the Oly 21/3.5 and 24/2.8 (I've owned four copies of the Oly 21/3.5, and two of the 24/2.8). If you don't look too close and don't print super-large, then I expect the Oly 18/3.5 will make most users even happier than those happy users of the Oly 21/3/5 and 24/2.8.
CA, and/or purple blooming; the TS-E 17/4L Is best, the EF 16-35/2.8L II and CZ 18/3.5 ZE are very similar and not bad at all, the Oly 21/3.5 is worst, but still it's not too bad.
More information on flare and vignetting is presented at the start of their respective posts. The sharpness and IQ example images tell their own story.
Enjoy.
A. Flare, at f/8
B. Vignetting, wide open and at f/8
C. Sharpness and IQ, Set 1, Halifax seen from Dartmouth (side lit, sun almost in image), f/8
D. Sharpness and IQ, Set 2, Halifax grain evelator (backlit), f/8
The photos were taken with a 6D, ISO 100, at f/8 (except for the wide-open vignetting images), on a tripod using manual focus LiveView (electronic first curtain shutter) with a 2 sec. timer delay for shutter release. For each lens and test subject, three different images were taken and then later, the "best of three" was selected. For each lens, all 100% crops were selected from the same image (i.e. the "best of three" image); rather than selecting the best left corner from one, and the best centre from another; and, yadda yadda, yadda. The only post processing was to use PS CS6 "auto-contrast" on each image, plus a special treatment to brighten a shadow area in Section D, as discussed later.
Most of the following comparison images have five panels:
1. top left 100% crop for Oly 21/3.5
2. top right 100% crop for EF 16-35/2.8L II
3. middle left 100% crop for TS-E 17/4L
4. middle right 100% crop for CZ 18/3.5 ZE
5. bottom centre, PS CS6 Navigator window, red square shows location of 100% crops.
The window names identify the lens, taking aperture, and image file name.
Summary of Results
Flare at f/8
The TS-E 71/4L has none for these examples, the EF 16-35/2.8L II is next best, then the CZ 18/3.5 ZE, and last the Oly 21/3.5 OM.
Vignetting wide open and f/8
The EF 16-35/2.8L II is best (!), then the TS-E 17/4L, then CZ 18/3.5 ZE, and last is the Oly 21/3.5 OM.
Sharpness & IQ
The TS-E 17/4L is generally the best, especially in extreme corners, but the CZ 18/3.5 ZE and EF 16-35/2.8L II are not at all far behind, over most of the image frame. I'm very pleasantly surprised by the excellent results from the EF 16-35/2.8L II.
The Olympus 18/3.5 is extremely good, but its IQ is not as good as the newer lenses, away from the central part of the image. OTOH, the Oly 18/3.5 IQ is much closer to its "excellent competitors" than are the Oly 21/3.5 and 24/2.8, with respect to their own "excellent competitors" (e.g. CZ 21/2.8 ZE and TS-E 24/3.5L II). Many people are very happy with the Oly 21/3.5 and 24/2.8 (I've owned four copies of the Oly 21/3.5, and two of the 24/2.8). If you don't look too close and don't print super-large, then I expect the Oly 18/3.5 will make most users even happier than those happy users of the Oly 21/3/5 and 24/2.8.
CA, and/or purple blooming; the TS-E 17/4L Is best, the EF 16-35/2.8L II and CZ 18/3.5 ZE are very similar and not bad at all, the Oly 21/3.5 is worst, but still it's not too bad.
More information on flare and vignetting is presented at the start of their respective posts. The sharpness and IQ example images tell their own story.
Enjoy.
Jan 17, 2014 at 09:50 AM
p.1 #3Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
A. Flare at f/8
The EF 16-35/2.8L II and CZ 18/3.5 ZE both had their proper hoods. The TS-E 17/4L doesn't have one (not made for this lens). The Oly 21/3.5 has the Oly 49mm to 77mm "funnel" step-up ring, but no hood.
TS-E 17/4L had no flare. Remarkable!
EF 16-35/2.8L II had almost no flare, see the two 100% crop examples, one small, bright spot at the fence rail, and a light-density flare structure at the extreme bottom right corner (see 100% crops).
CZ 18/3.5 ZE has light-density whitist/violet and whitist/green flare structures at bottom right, plus a few smaller 'precursor' flare spots towards sun (see 100% crops).
The Oly 18/3.5 has medium-density redish flare, covering a realtively large area in the lower right, plus some small but intense pre-cursor spots, and a light-density pinkish blob just in from the top left corner (near the sun). Note that there is no flare on the Oly when using a hand to shade the sun, but the "line" between effective shading and no shading (with flare) is very small. I did three exposures with my hand in "the same place". Two of the images had no flare, but the edge of my hand is in-frame for both images (see example). The single image with my hand just out of frame, has lots of flare (as described above). The proper Oly hood might solve the flare problem, but I understand they're quite rare and probably spendy.
EF 16-35/2.8L II
EF 16-35/2.8L II
CZ 18/3.5 ZE
CZ 18/3.5 ZE
CZ 18/3.5 ZE
Edited on Jan 17, 2014 at 10:01 AM · View previous versions
The EF 16-35/2.8L II and CZ 18/3.5 ZE both had their proper hoods. The TS-E 17/4L doesn't have one (not made for this lens). The Oly 21/3.5 has the Oly 49mm to 77mm "funnel" step-up ring, but no hood.
TS-E 17/4L had no flare. Remarkable!
EF 16-35/2.8L II had almost no flare, see the two 100% crop examples, one small, bright spot at the fence rail, and a light-density flare structure at the extreme bottom right corner (see 100% crops).
CZ 18/3.5 ZE has light-density whitist/violet and whitist/green flare structures at bottom right, plus a few smaller 'precursor' flare spots towards sun (see 100% crops).
The Oly 18/3.5 has medium-density redish flare, covering a realtively large area in the lower right, plus some small but intense pre-cursor spots, and a light-density pinkish blob just in from the top left corner (near the sun). Note that there is no flare on the Oly when using a hand to shade the sun, but the "line" between effective shading and no shading (with flare) is very small. I did three exposures with my hand in "the same place". Two of the images had no flare, but the edge of my hand is in-frame for both images (see example). The single image with my hand just out of frame, has lots of flare (as described above). The proper Oly hood might solve the flare problem, but I understand they're quite rare and probably spendy.
EF 16-35/2.8L II
EF 16-35/2.8L II
CZ 18/3.5 ZE
CZ 18/3.5 ZE
CZ 18/3.5 ZE
Edited on Jan 17, 2014 at 10:01 AM · View previous versions
Jan 17, 2014 at 09:51 AM
p.1 #4Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
(continued)
Oly 21/3.5
Oly 21/3.5
Oly 21/3.5
Oly 21/3.5 with "shade hand" visible at top left
Edited on Jan 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM · View previous versions
Oly 21/3.5
Oly 21/3.5
Oly 21/3.5
Oly 21/3.5 with "shade hand" visible at top left
Edited on Jan 17, 2014 at 10:02 AM · View previous versions
Jan 17, 2014 at 09:52 AM
p.1 #5Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
B. Vignetting wide open and at f/8
Summary, for both wide open and f/8;
best EF 16-35/2.8L II (!)
then TS-E 17/4L
then CZ 18/3.5 ZE
worst Oly 21/3.5
See attached 33% crops, first for each lens wide open, then for each lens at f/8.
In each case, a small circular section of the EF 16-35/2.8L II image has been sampled, and cloned onto the other three images, at the same relative position. I figure that this helps to evaluate the differences between the lenses.
Wide open
f/8
Summary, for both wide open and f/8;
best EF 16-35/2.8L II (!)
then TS-E 17/4L
then CZ 18/3.5 ZE
worst Oly 21/3.5
See attached 33% crops, first for each lens wide open, then for each lens at f/8.
In each case, a small circular section of the EF 16-35/2.8L II image has been sampled, and cloned onto the other three images, at the same relative position. I figure that this helps to evaluate the differences between the lenses.
Wide open
f/8
Jan 17, 2014 at 09:53 AM
p.1 #6Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
C. Sharpness and IQ, Set 1, Halifax seen from Dartmouth
Strong side light, sun very near top left of frame. All images at f/8.
Strong side light, sun very near top left of frame. All images at f/8.
Jan 17, 2014 at 09:54 AM
p.1 #8Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
D. Sharpness and IQ, Set 2, Halifax grain evelator
Backlit. All images at f/8.
Details in top right of the grain elevetor would probably be slightly better for the TS-E 17/4L if the exposure was reduced by 1/3 or 2/3 stop. I checked the histogram for each set of exposures, but the TS-E 17/4L image is slightly over exposed, in comparison with images from the other lenses.
Backlit. All images at f/8.
Details in top right of the grain elevetor would probably be slightly better for the TS-E 17/4L if the exposure was reduced by 1/3 or 2/3 stop. I checked the histogram for each set of exposures, but the TS-E 17/4L image is slightly over exposed, in comparison with images from the other lenses.
Jan 17, 2014 at 09:55 AM
p.1 #9Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
D. Sharpness and IQ, Set 2 (continued)
The two following comparison sets are; (i) the "as shot" centre foreground, and (ii) the same crop but brightened to recover detail from the shadows.
Of course, everybody knows that you can't recover any detail from shadows on an EOS DSLR, and so I really shouldn't have bothered.
The two following comparison sets are; (i) the "as shot" centre foreground, and (ii) the same crop but brightened to recover detail from the shadows.
Of course, everybody knows that you can't recover any detail from shadows on an EOS DSLR, and so I really shouldn't have bothered.
Jan 17, 2014 at 09:56 AM
p.1 #10Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Good test, thanks for the hard work that I know was involved. Some call this meausrbating, I call it knowing your gear.
Having both the 17TSE and 16-36 MK2, I only pull out the 17TSE when I need either tilt, shift or both. 90% of the time I just need shift. If I don't need to point the 16-35 upward, I prefer it to the 17TSE because I am poor at manual focus.
Your results confirm my opinion of the 16-35. This is after having Canon fix a decentering issue when new.
Having both the 17TSE and 16-36 MK2, I only pull out the 17TSE when I need either tilt, shift or both. 90% of the time I just need shift. If I don't need to point the 16-35 upward, I prefer it to the 17TSE because I am poor at manual focus.
Your results confirm my opinion of the 16-35. This is after having Canon fix a decentering issue when new.
Jan 17, 2014 at 11:02 AM
p.1 #11Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
You may have just talked me into a 16-35 mk II. My Samyang 14 (and all my other lenses) have had me fairly discontent wtih my 17-40 for a while..most previous tests in the past have shown that the 17-40 and the 16-35 II really aren't that far apart at the wide end and stopped down, but my 17-40 can't do this.
Jan 17, 2014 at 11:17 AM
p.1 #12Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
The 16-35 II holds up remarkably well to those primes. Even in large prints I doubt I could see much difference between them. Of course, this is coming from a 16-35 II owner.
Jan 17, 2014 at 11:23 AM
p.1 #13Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Unfortunately you left out the most cost-effective lens option in this comparison, the 17-40/4 L which still delivers a great IQ.
Jan 17, 2014 at 11:25 AM
p.1 #14Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Jim -- Thanks for the wonderful comparison.
And thanks for the indirect vindication of my past praise and examples of the 16-35II. It seems I was one of rare voices to say he used this lens for architecture -- probably because of the caustic remarks that sort of cultish behavior engenders.
retro -- Sorry, but according to my simple comparisons, the 16-35II bested the 17-40 by a wide margin, so I sold the 17-40. It's not just about 2.8 vs. 4, or center sharpness at f/8. The 17-40 is certainly acceptable and of L quality, but not very strong across the frame. I doubt there is much call to put it up against the 17TSE, but you are welcome to do so and provide results on the forum.
And thanks for the indirect vindication of my past praise and examples of the 16-35II. It seems I was one of rare voices to say he used this lens for architecture -- probably because of the caustic remarks that sort of cultish behavior engenders.
retro -- Sorry, but according to my simple comparisons, the 16-35II bested the 17-40 by a wide margin, so I sold the 17-40. It's not just about 2.8 vs. 4, or center sharpness at f/8. The 17-40 is certainly acceptable and of L quality, but not very strong across the frame. I doubt there is much call to put it up against the 17TSE, but you are welcome to do so and provide results on the forum.
Jan 17, 2014 at 12:45 PM
p.1 #15Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Gunzorro wrote:
Jim -- Thanks for the wonderful comparison.
And thanks for the indirect vindication of my past praise and examples of the 16-35II. It seems I was one of rare voices to say he used this lens for architecture -- probably because of the caustic remarks that sort of cultish behavior engenders.
retro -- Sorry, but according to my simple comparisons, the 16-35II bested the 17-40 by a wide margin, so I sold the 17-40. It's not just about 2.8 vs. 4, or center sharpness at f/8. The 17-40 is certainly acceptable and of L quality, but not very strong...Show more →
I was never able to achieve critical focus with my 17-40 which I bought in 2004 and sold 2 years ago before my first live view focus camera. I always wondered if live view focus would have made the difference. Aside from weak corners and edges, I was never able to get both foreground and infinity acceptable sharp even stopped down. F4 is harder to focus in the viewfinder than f2,8.
Jim -- Thanks for the wonderful comparison.
And thanks for the indirect vindication of my past praise and examples of the 16-35II. It seems I was one of rare voices to say he used this lens for architecture -- probably because of the caustic remarks that sort of cultish behavior engenders.
retro -- Sorry, but according to my simple comparisons, the 16-35II bested the 17-40 by a wide margin, so I sold the 17-40. It's not just about 2.8 vs. 4, or center sharpness at f/8. The 17-40 is certainly acceptable and of L quality, but not very strong...Show more →
I was never able to achieve critical focus with my 17-40 which I bought in 2004 and sold 2 years ago before my first live view focus camera. I always wondered if live view focus would have made the difference. Aside from weak corners and edges, I was never able to get both foreground and infinity acceptable sharp even stopped down. F4 is harder to focus in the viewfinder than f2,8.
Jan 17, 2014 at 12:51 PM
p.1 #16Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Thanks guys.
I agree with Jim (Gunzorro) that the 17-40L isn't in the same league as the 16-35/2.8L II. I owned one for about seven years. I have posted extensive IQ comparisons between the 17-40L and a variety of Alts, mostly on the Alt forum.
I'm like Ben, in that I usually only take the TS-E 17/4L when I know that I want to use tilt or (most often) shift. That's why I bought the 18 ZE, for when I'm not carrying the TS-E 17/4L. One of my common setups when traveling to a 'photo' destination, especially when I'm shooting events there, is the three f/2.8 II zooms (16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 IS II), two bodies (either 1DX + 1DIV or two 6D), and 18ZE, 24/2.8 IS, 40/2.8, 85/1.8, and 135/2.
I agree with Jim (Gunzorro) that the 17-40L isn't in the same league as the 16-35/2.8L II. I owned one for about seven years. I have posted extensive IQ comparisons between the 17-40L and a variety of Alts, mostly on the Alt forum.
I'm like Ben, in that I usually only take the TS-E 17/4L when I know that I want to use tilt or (most often) shift. That's why I bought the 18 ZE, for when I'm not carrying the TS-E 17/4L. One of my common setups when traveling to a 'photo' destination, especially when I'm shooting events there, is the three f/2.8 II zooms (16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 IS II), two bodies (either 1DX + 1DIV or two 6D), and 18ZE, 24/2.8 IS, 40/2.8, 85/1.8, and 135/2.
Jan 17, 2014 at 01:22 PM
p.1 #17Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Gunzorro wrote:
retro -- Sorry, but according to my simple comparisons, the 16-35II bested the 17-40 by a wide margin, so I sold the 17-40. It's not just about 2.8 vs. 4, or center sharpness at f/8. The 17-40 is certainly acceptable and of L quality, but not very strong across the frame. I doubt there is much call to put it up against the 17TSE, but you are welcome to do so and provide results on the forum.
It would be nice if you wouldn't put words in my mouth which I didn't say. I never used the 17 TSE, but I agree that this TSE version might be likely better around the corners than the 17-40/4 - but as I said above, I simply didn't see a test in side by side comparison. Also, other tests than yours show that the 16-35 II and the 17-40 are not so far spread out than what you have seen.
retro -- Sorry, but according to my simple comparisons, the 16-35II bested the 17-40 by a wide margin, so I sold the 17-40. It's not just about 2.8 vs. 4, or center sharpness at f/8. The 17-40 is certainly acceptable and of L quality, but not very strong across the frame. I doubt there is much call to put it up against the 17TSE, but you are welcome to do so and provide results on the forum.
It would be nice if you wouldn't put words in my mouth which I didn't say. I never used the 17 TSE, but I agree that this TSE version might be likely better around the corners than the 17-40/4 - but as I said above, I simply didn't see a test in side by side comparison. Also, other tests than yours show that the 16-35 II and the 17-40 are not so far spread out than what you have seen.
Jan 17, 2014 at 01:30 PM
p.1 #18Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Jim -- As a side note, since I see you mentioned the 24/2.8 IS as part of your "destination kit": I just yesterday received this lens, and this morning getting it MA'ed on my three suitable bodies. I am totally blown away by this lens! It is replacing my standard 24/2.8 (recent UW date), and what an eye-opener it is! I'm anxious to compare against the 24 TSE II. I shot some MFD stuff indoors at 1/13 hand held -- wow! Outdoors -- wow, wide open with negligible curvature of field. Now I've got to find a deal on the 35 IS! This lens is MP-ready for Canon to come out with a high rez sensor. Just a note to throw you a little added validation on your selection process.
retro -- Not putting words in your mouth, but you were essentially asking to include the 17-40 in this type of comparison, and since it has been shown against the 16-35II before, it naturally would me you are clamoring to see how it looks against the 17 TSE. That is what you were asking for. Like I said, make your own test and present it, along with your methodology -- I'm sure we'd all find it very interesting.
I do agree that the 17-40L is an outstanding budget option for UWA lens! It deserves praise, just like the 24-105L.
retro -- Not putting words in your mouth, but you were essentially asking to include the 17-40 in this type of comparison, and since it has been shown against the 16-35II before, it naturally would me you are clamoring to see how it looks against the 17 TSE. That is what you were asking for. Like I said, make your own test and present it, along with your methodology -- I'm sure we'd all find it very interesting.
I do agree that the 17-40L is an outstanding budget option for UWA lens! It deserves praise, just like the 24-105L.
Jan 17, 2014 at 02:19 PM
p.1 #19Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Gunzorro wrote:
retro -- Not putting words in your mouth, but you were essentially asking to include the 17-40 in this type of comparison, and since it has been shown against the 16-35II before, it naturally would me you are clamoring to see how it looks against the 17 TSE. That is what you were asking for. Like I said, make your own test and present it, along with your methodology -- I'm sure we'd all find it very interesting.
Okay, I try it slowly again. I simply suggested to have the 17-40 included in this side-by side comparison - not expecting anything specific. I wish I could test my 17-40 lens copy against the 17 TSE - but as I said above, I don't own the 17 TSE (I personally prefer for tilt shift the 24 mm FL).
retro -- Not putting words in your mouth, but you were essentially asking to include the 17-40 in this type of comparison, and since it has been shown against the 16-35II before, it naturally would me you are clamoring to see how it looks against the 17 TSE. That is what you were asking for. Like I said, make your own test and present it, along with your methodology -- I'm sure we'd all find it very interesting.
Okay, I try it slowly again. I simply suggested to have the 17-40 included in this side-by side comparison - not expecting anything specific. I wish I could test my 17-40 lens copy against the 17 TSE - but as I said above, I don't own the 17 TSE (I personally prefer for tilt shift the 24 mm FL).
Jan 17, 2014 at 02:25 PM
p.1 #20Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
This had me going back out to test my 17-40 more objectively. At 17mm, f/16 is the only aperture that I'd be willing to shoot a landscape at for print (my corners here are only just acceptable). Diffraction is already evident, but gets far worse at f/22. At 20mm, the corners are fine at f/11. The rest of the zoom range is very good at f/8 across the image.
Because I have it, and because I have filters in 77mm already, I'll probably hang onto the 17-40, but this almost pushed me over the edge. To be fair, my other lenses are all famous for their excellent image quality. It's not really fair to judge them against one another, but I do anyway
Because I have it, and because I have filters in 77mm already, I'll probably hang onto the 17-40, but this almost pushed me over the edge
. To be fair, my other lenses are all famous for their excellent image quality. It's not really fair to judge them against one another, but I do anyway Jan 17, 2014 at 02:34 PM