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.2 #1Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
jasonpatrick wrote:
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...Show more →
Sorry to sidetrack Jim's awesome results thread, but, Jason, that's exactly the behavior I had with my copy (and Jim apparently had the same too). I felt I had a very good copy of the lens, but the design was lacking. I almost kept if for my APS-H crop 1D2, which concentrated on all the very best in the image. But reason prevailed, since I could use the 16-35II on the 1D2, why not get a little of its price back? That was a key point in my willingness to cut loose any gear that wasn't "earning its keep". Having a sentimental attachment was over, becoming, "What have you done for me lately [lens, body, flash]?".
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...Show more →Sorry to sidetrack Jim's awesome results thread, but, Jason, that's exactly the behavior I had with my copy (and Jim apparently had the same too). I felt I had a very good copy of the lens, but the design was lacking. I almost kept if for my APS-H crop 1D2, which concentrated on all the very best in the image. But reason prevailed, since I could use the 16-35II on the 1D2, why not get a little of its price back? That was a key point in my willingness to cut loose any gear that wasn't "earning its keep". Having a sentimental attachment was over, becoming, "What have you done for me lately [lens, body, flash]?".
Jan 17, 2014 at 02:42 PM
p.2 #2Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Gunzorro wrote:
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...Show more →
Hi Jim,
I got my 24/2.8 IS about two weeks ago. It's very nice, and has surprisingly good manual focus "feel".
At the same time as I shot the 17mm/18mm tests, I also tested 24mm (6 lenses) and 35mm (7 lenses). I'm working on the 35mm test report now. It'll be posted in two parts, one here on Canon and the other on Alt, because of the lenses involved. The 24-70/2.8L II will be included in both posts. Unfortunately, I discovered that this lens was set to 28mm for the 24mm tests, and so I'll have to shoot that set again. Stupid lenses!
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...Show more →
Hi Jim,
I got my 24/2.8 IS about two weeks ago. It's very nice, and has surprisingly good manual focus "feel".
At the same time as I shot the 17mm/18mm tests, I also tested 24mm (6 lenses) and 35mm (7 lenses). I'm working on the 35mm test report now. It'll be posted in two parts, one here on Canon and the other on Alt, because of the lenses involved. The 24-70/2.8L II will be included in both posts. Unfortunately, I discovered that this lens was set to 28mm for the 24mm tests, and so I'll have to shoot that set again. Stupid lenses!
Jan 17, 2014 at 03:10 PM
p.2 #3Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
These tests are great to refer back to, Jim. I can't tell you how many times I've searched and found one of your tests when I was looking for a lens and used that test to help me make my decision. So thanks!
Jan 17, 2014 at 03:21 PM
p.2 #4Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Jim, thank you for a very informative and easy to understand test and all the work involved. I loved my 16-35 II and was very happy with the results…….But I sold it because I also have the EF 14mm II, 17mm TS-E, and 24mm TS-E II and I found myself just not using it much with my type of shooting……If it wasn’t for the need of the tilt/shift I would have kept it.
You verified the results I found, which is that it’s remarkable that a zoom could even be in the ball park with the primes.
You verified the results I found, which is that it’s remarkable that a zoom could even be in the ball park with the primes.
Jan 17, 2014 at 03:37 PM
p.2 #5Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
jcolwell wrote:
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
My bias before this test was ts best in all dimensions but flare and canon and zeiss kind of even because this particularl zeiss is one of their weakest.
So the only surprise is TS did so well in the flare and the 16-35 did so well overall. It gets lots of bad mouthing.
Thanks for all the hard work. I have stats for all these from photo zone.de. But its great to see how it works in the real world. Often the stats from photo zone or dxomark do not account for field curvature because they are shot relatively close. So this is a great confirmation.
Scott
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
My bias before this test was ts best in all dimensions but flare and canon and zeiss kind of even because this particularl zeiss is one of their weakest.
So the only surprise is TS did so well in the flare and the 16-35 did so well overall. It gets lots of bad mouthing.
Thanks for all the hard work. I have stats for all these from photo zone.de. But its great to see how it works in the real world. Often the stats from photo zone or dxomark do not account for field curvature because they are shot relatively close. So this is a great confirmation.
Scott
Jan 17, 2014 at 04:14 PM
p.2 #8Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
jcolwell wrote:
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
It is interesting to contemplate how differently a discussion of the relative merits of these lens might have gone absent a confirmation-bias-dampening set of test examples... ;-)
Dan
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
It is interesting to contemplate how differently a discussion of the relative merits of these lens might have gone absent a confirmation-bias-dampening set of test examples... ;-)
Dan
Jan 18, 2014 at 12:35 AM
p.2 #9Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Thanks Jim, this just reaffirms my bias towards the quality of the 16-35L II.
Roger
Roger
Jan 18, 2014 at 01:41 AM
p.2 #10Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
galenapass wrote:
FM needs more threads like this.
Thanks.
Stay tuned...
FM needs more threads like this.
Thanks.
Stay tuned...
Jan 18, 2014 at 05:53 AM
p.2 #11Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Thanks for this excellent comparison. The zoom held in there quite well with the 17mm and the Zeiss. All 3 were impressive. That poor Olympus was just overmatched by the other 3.
Jan 18, 2014 at 07:54 AM
p.2 #12Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Thanks for taking the time to test them side by side.
Just dont show the Zeiss guys who would have you believe everything Zeiss produce its the unsurpassed master.
Well unless your fortunate enough to show it up with Leica..lol.
Anyway very good showing from the 16-35 which i am not that surprised by(I dont use Zeiss..lol) after dragging mine all over the world and getting lovely images with.
Not surprised by the 17..its a brilliant piece of glass..
Thanks again for the tests much appreciated.
Just dont show the Zeiss guys who would have you believe everything Zeiss produce its the unsurpassed master.
Well unless your fortunate enough to show it up with Leica..lol.
Anyway very good showing from the 16-35 which i am not that surprised by(I dont use Zeiss..lol) after dragging mine all over the world and getting lovely images with.
Not surprised by the 17..its a brilliant piece of glass..
Thanks again for the tests much appreciated.
Jan 18, 2014 at 09:22 AM
p.2 #13Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Jim,
As far as ultra wide sharpness goes in your opinion when does one reach the point of "good enough" for typical use for printing? Also are there any tips to getting the most out of wide angle lenses in the corners?
For example, I own the 17-40 lens and generally think it is pretty good. I get some shots like the one below where I'm 100% happy with it. I think this is sharp enough for any reasonable use.
2013_10_27_4458_LR_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr
But the one below is abysmal on the edges.
2013_12_28_5665_LR_upd2 by dthrog00, on Flickr
What happened here? I know that I tilted the lens up so this could be partially a DOF problem. I also did some perspective correction in post. I like the idea of the panorama look to the castle, but the edges softness bothers me.
I don't think it's the equipment (@17mm) because the one below, while not exactly the most interesting photo, looks ok to me on the edges.
2013_08_03_2515_LR_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr
Thank you for any help
Dave
As far as ultra wide sharpness goes in your opinion when does one reach the point of "good enough" for typical use for printing? Also are there any tips to getting the most out of wide angle lenses in the corners?
For example, I own the 17-40 lens and generally think it is pretty good. I get some shots like the one below where I'm 100% happy with it. I think this is sharp enough for any reasonable use.
2013_10_27_4458_LR_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr
But the one below is abysmal on the edges.
2013_12_28_5665_LR_upd2 by dthrog00, on Flickr
What happened here? I know that I tilted the lens up so this could be partially a DOF problem. I also did some perspective correction in post. I like the idea of the panorama look to the castle, but the edges softness bothers me.
I don't think it's the equipment (@17mm) because the one below, while not exactly the most interesting photo, looks ok to me on the edges.
2013_08_03_2515_LR_upd by dthrog00, on Flickr
Thank you for any help
Dave
Jan 18, 2014 at 09:26 AM
p.2 #14Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Hi Dave,
You should probably start a new thread to get answers to your questions about what's "good enough" for printing. It would be a good topic, and sure to get lots of 'action'. It should probably be posted on the PP & Printing forum.
It's difficult to say anything about the details of edge IQ from the whole-image photos you posted. All I can say "off the cuff" is that the tree branches at the extreme left and right edges of your second image look just fine to me, even though you think it has "abysmal edges". Maybe it's more associated with what you want to see in the building details, as compared to where the image is, after "partial" perspective-correction.
One way to reduce perspective problems, especially with images like the second and third examples you provided, is to take the building with the lens as near to horizontal as you can get, and then rotate up a bit for a second shot, to capture the roof line and the amount of sky that you want for the ultimate composition. Combine them as a vertical panorama, using the least-distorted roof line as a guide for using perspective correction to adjust the "bottom" of the skyline, which you would layer 'behind' the main building image.
Also, I'd like to clarify my opinion of the 17-40/4L. It's an excellent lens. The only IQ issues that I ever had with it were in the corners, and then only when the image actually had highly detailed content there; many images don't.
Cheers,
Jim
You should probably start a new thread to get answers to your questions about what's "good enough" for printing. It would be a good topic, and sure to get lots of 'action'. It should probably be posted on the PP & Printing forum.
It's difficult to say anything about the details of edge IQ from the whole-image photos you posted. All I can say "off the cuff" is that the tree branches at the extreme left and right edges of your second image look just fine to me, even though you think it has "abysmal edges". Maybe it's more associated with what you want to see in the building details, as compared to where the image is, after "partial" perspective-correction.
One way to reduce perspective problems, especially with images like the second and third examples you provided, is to take the building with the lens as near to horizontal as you can get, and then rotate up a bit for a second shot, to capture the roof line and the amount of sky that you want for the ultimate composition. Combine them as a vertical panorama, using the least-distorted roof line as a guide for using perspective correction to adjust the "bottom" of the skyline, which you would layer 'behind' the main building image.
Also, I'd like to clarify my opinion of the 17-40/4L. It's an excellent lens. The only IQ issues that I ever had with it were in the corners, and then only when the image actually had highly detailed content there; many images don't.
Cheers,
Jim
Jan 18, 2014 at 10:47 AM
p.2 #15Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
thanks for taking the time to do all this for us! I was assuming the 17TS would blow the others away, but i'm very impressed with how the 16-35mkII held up considering that it's other "main purpose" is as wide-angle photo-journalist lens in tight quarters for event reportage..
i'd love to see a comparison of the corners on the 17TS vs the corners of the Zeiss 21mm (to me, the true WA champ out of all the lenses i've ever personally used/owned).. i know 21mm is obviously not nearly as wide, but man.. the tones & micro-contrast out of the Zeiss 21mm paired with the 1Ds3 created many of my favourite images of all time.
i'd love to see a comparison of the corners on the 17TS vs the corners of the Zeiss 21mm (to me, the true WA champ out of all the lenses i've ever personally used/owned).. i know 21mm is obviously not nearly as wide, but man.. the tones & micro-contrast out of the Zeiss 21mm paired with the 1Ds3 created many of my favourite images of all time.
Jan 18, 2014 at 10:58 AM
p.2 #16Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
jcolwell wrote:
Hi Dave,
You should probably start a new thread to get answers to your questions about what's "good enough" for printing. It would be a good topic, and sure to get lots of 'action'. It should probably be posted on the PP & Printing forum.
It's difficult to say anything about the details of edge IQ from the whole-image photos you posted. All I can say "off the cuff" is that the tree branches at the extreme left and right edges of your second image look just fine to me, even though you think it has "abysmal edges". Maybe it's more...Show more →
Thanks Jim, I appreciate your suggestions.
I'll try the vertical panorama idea out next time I find myself in a similar situation. The building in image #2 is on a fairly steep hill and makes photography difficult!
Maybe I was being too critical? Nearly everyone, me included, seems to want perfection for our hard earned cash and sometimes that is asking too much. If I want near perfect corners at 17mm there is an easy solution, all I'd have to do is open up my wallet for the tilt shift lens! I won't though, I think my 17-40 is ok after all compared to the $2500 alternative
Dave
Hi Dave,
You should probably start a new thread to get answers to your questions about what's "good enough" for printing. It would be a good topic, and sure to get lots of 'action'. It should probably be posted on the PP & Printing forum.
It's difficult to say anything about the details of edge IQ from the whole-image photos you posted. All I can say "off the cuff" is that the tree branches at the extreme left and right edges of your second image look just fine to me, even though you think it has "abysmal edges". Maybe it's more...Show more →
Thanks Jim, I appreciate your suggestions.
I'll try the vertical panorama idea out next time I find myself in a similar situation. The building in image #2 is on a fairly steep hill and makes photography difficult!
Maybe I was being too critical? Nearly everyone, me included, seems to want perfection for our hard earned cash and sometimes that is asking too much. If I want near perfect corners at 17mm there is an easy solution, all I'd have to do is open up my wallet for the tilt shift lens! I won't though, I think my 17-40 is ok after all compared to the $2500 alternative
Dave
Jan 18, 2014 at 11:53 AM
p.2 #17Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Apologies for this (deleted) double post.
Edited on Jan 18, 2014 at 04:46 PM · View previous versions
Edited on Jan 18, 2014 at 04:46 PM · View previous versions
Jan 18, 2014 at 01:09 PM
p.2 #18Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
kaycephoto wrote:
thanks for taking the time to do all this for us! I was assuming the 17TS would blow the others away...
To try to soften the rage that sometimes ensues, let me begin by saying that the 17TS is demonstrably a really, really fine lens and is exactly the lens that some photographers need for some kinds of photography. So, I am not here to say anything negative about the 17TS or any other particular lens.
What I am here to point out is that we all need to be on guard against a few pitfalls when it comes to focusing too closely on lens comparisons. These include:
1. Making resolution the only criterion or vastly over-rating its importance relative to other aspects of lens performance and functionality. To be crystal clear I am not saying that resolution does not matter. I am saying that it is often the case that several lenses produce excellent resolution, even when one among them might (depending upon how you measure) produce a higher test value.
2. In these cases, the difference is often not significant or it may be far less significant than the sum of other differences among the lenses, in particular including functionality and suitability for a particular use.
3. It is important to check assumptions based on what you have heard or what you believe against more objective measures. Photography is not a wholly objective pursuit, and there are lots of opinions. Before you pick one to latch onto, consider that there may be others that are equally valid and that context is the one of the main differences. Also consider that there is a lot of just plain misinformation passed off as fact on the Internet...
Take care, and make wonderful photographs with whichever of these or other lenses you choose to use. :-)
Dan
(By the way, and not referring to the previous writer's response here, be cautious any time someone tells you that camera A "blows away" camera B or that lens X "blows away" lens Y. It is almost always the case that, at best, A or X may be a small - and sometimes subjective - increment better than A or Y - and the "blows away!" language should turn on your hyperbole alert system!)
thanks for taking the time to do all this for us! I was assuming the 17TS would blow the others away...
To try to soften the rage that sometimes ensues, let me begin by saying that the 17TS is demonstrably a really, really fine lens and is exactly the lens that some photographers need for some kinds of photography. So, I am not here to say anything negative about the 17TS or any other particular lens.
What I am here to point out is that we all need to be on guard against a few pitfalls when it comes to focusing too closely on lens comparisons. These include:
1. Making resolution the only criterion or vastly over-rating its importance relative to other aspects of lens performance and functionality. To be crystal clear I am not saying that resolution does not matter. I am saying that it is often the case that several lenses produce excellent resolution, even when one among them might (depending upon how you measure) produce a higher test value.
2. In these cases, the difference is often not significant or it may be far less significant than the sum of other differences among the lenses, in particular including functionality and suitability for a particular use.
3. It is important to check assumptions based on what you have heard or what you believe against more objective measures. Photography is not a wholly objective pursuit, and there are lots of opinions. Before you pick one to latch onto, consider that there may be others that are equally valid and that context is the one of the main differences. Also consider that there is a lot of just plain misinformation passed off as fact on the Internet...
Take care, and make wonderful photographs with whichever of these or other lenses you choose to use. :-)
Dan
(By the way, and not referring to the previous writer's response here, be cautious any time someone tells you that camera A "blows away" camera B or that lens X "blows away" lens Y. It is almost always the case that, at best, A or X may be a small - and sometimes subjective - increment better than A or Y - and the "blows away!" language should turn on your hyperbole alert system!)
Jan 18, 2014 at 01:12 PM
p.2 #19Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
gdanmitchell wrote:
To try to soften the rage that sometimes ensues, let me begin by saying that the 17TS is demonstrably a really, really fine lens and is exactly the lens that some photographers need for some kinds of photography. So, I am not here to say anything negative about the 17TS or any other particular lens.
The "rage" that you see is not visible to the naked eye. May I point out that disagreement with your views, even in instances where it is strong, is not tantamount to "rage."
I see that you have softened your view about TS lenses now. Earlier I recall you describing them as "exotic" or some such.
To try to soften the rage that sometimes ensues, let me begin by saying that the 17TS is demonstrably a really, really fine lens and is exactly the lens that some photographers need for some kinds of photography. So, I am not here to say anything negative about the 17TS or any other particular lens.
The "rage" that you see is not visible to the naked eye. May I point out that disagreement with your views, even in instances where it is strong, is not tantamount to "rage."
I see that you have softened your view about TS lenses now. Earlier I recall you describing them as "exotic" or some such.
Jan 18, 2014 at 01:20 PM
p.2 #20Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
To my eye, the 17 TS-E was still the best of the bunch by a small margin, and also had the lowest amount of color fringing. What this test didn't show was the relative distortion between the different lenses, and what you'd probably find is that the 17 would likely have the lowest distortion of the bunch as well. A third phenomenon that's a bit harder to quantify of course, is curvature of field, which can made some lenses look better in certain situations than they might appear elsewhere.
Jan 18, 2014 at 01:34 PM