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.4 #1Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Jim,
Where did you focus for your resolution tests? Infinity?
The TS-E 17mm is very sensitive to any slight focusing adjustment. Only 1mm can throw things OOF. I never focus on the center of the frame to account for field curvature. Even stepping down to f/8 or f/11 won't be enough for optimal edges when focusing straight on the center of the frame.
I try focusing somewhere from the center towards the edges. I really like this lens but where you focus is crucial for the center/edges resolution.
I'm rather surprised by your vignetting results. Vignetting and distortion are the big advantages of shooting with the TS-E 17mm. I would think it would be a least twice as better than the zoom.
Fred
Where did you focus for your resolution tests? Infinity?
The TS-E 17mm is very sensitive to any slight focusing adjustment. Only 1mm can throw things OOF. I never focus on the center of the frame to account for field curvature. Even stepping down to f/8 or f/11 won't be enough for optimal edges when focusing straight on the center of the frame.
I try focusing somewhere from the center towards the edges. I really like this lens but where you focus is crucial for the center/edges resolution.
I'm rather surprised by your vignetting results. Vignetting and distortion are the big advantages of shooting with the TS-E 17mm. I would think it would be a least twice as better than the zoom.
Fred
Jan 19, 2014 at 11:00 AM
p.4 #2Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Fred Miranda wrote:
Jim,
Where did you focus for your resolution tests? Infinity?
The TS-E 17mm is very sensitive to any slight focusing adjustment. Only 1mm can throw things OOF. I never focus on the center of the frame to account for field curvature. Even stepping down to f/8 or f/11 won't be enough for optimal edges when focusing straight on the center of the frame.
I try focusing somewhere from the center towards the edges. I really like this lens but where you focus is crucial for the center/edges resolution.
I'm rather surprised by your vignetting results. Vignetting and distortion are the big advantages of...Show more →
I have noticed this focusing problem Fred but never knew the solution, I need to do some tests.
Jim,
Where did you focus for your resolution tests? Infinity?
The TS-E 17mm is very sensitive to any slight focusing adjustment. Only 1mm can throw things OOF. I never focus on the center of the frame to account for field curvature. Even stepping down to f/8 or f/11 won't be enough for optimal edges when focusing straight on the center of the frame.
I try focusing somewhere from the center towards the edges. I really like this lens but where you focus is crucial for the center/edges resolution.
I'm rather surprised by your vignetting results. Vignetting and distortion are the big advantages of...Show more →
I have noticed this focusing problem Fred but never knew the solution, I need to do some tests.
Jan 19, 2014 at 11:05 AM
p.4 #3Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Fred Miranda wrote:
Jim,
Where did you focus for your resolution tests? Infinity?
The TS-E 17mm is very sensitive to any slight focusing adjustment. Only 1mm can throw things OOF. I never focus on the center of the frame to account for field curvature. Even stepping down to f/8 or f/11 won't be enough for optimal edges when focusing straight on the center of the frame.
I try focusing somewhere from the center towards the edges. I really like this lens but where you focus is crucial for the center/edges resolution.
I'm rather surprised by your vignetting results. Vignetting and distortion are the big advantages of...Show more →
Fred,
All images were focused on the centre. For the "Set 1" harbour photos, the centre focus point was about 2/3 back in the field, compared with all of the crop areas. For the "Set 2" images, the centre focus point was in about the centre of the field. I think all of the corners are pretty good, for the 17 TS-E.
There was very little vignetting for the 17/4 TS-E. The big surprise for me was the low vignetting on the zoom.
Jim
Jim,
Where did you focus for your resolution tests? Infinity?
The TS-E 17mm is very sensitive to any slight focusing adjustment. Only 1mm can throw things OOF. I never focus on the center of the frame to account for field curvature. Even stepping down to f/8 or f/11 won't be enough for optimal edges when focusing straight on the center of the frame.
I try focusing somewhere from the center towards the edges. I really like this lens but where you focus is crucial for the center/edges resolution.
I'm rather surprised by your vignetting results. Vignetting and distortion are the big advantages of...Show more →
Fred,
All images were focused on the centre. For the "Set 1" harbour photos, the centre focus point was about 2/3 back in the field, compared with all of the crop areas. For the "Set 2" images, the centre focus point was in about the centre of the field. I think all of the corners are pretty good, for the 17 TS-E.
There was very little vignetting for the 17/4 TS-E. The big surprise for me was the low vignetting on the zoom.
Jim
Jan 19, 2014 at 11:08 AM
p.4 #4Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
gdanmitchell wrote:
I don't know if I would say well in advance for flexibility when the 16-35 is a zoom and has AF. Those are two pretty damn big components to flexibility in my book and why I own it.That is kind of my overall point in these posts - that once you get to a certain level of, say, resolution (which can vary a bit depending upon your subject and so forth), resolution differences become less significant that other factors that sometimes get left in the dust.
As an example, let's consider two kinds of photographers - out of a wide range of types that you might imagine or even be yourself.
One is a product photographer who works in a relatively controlled shooting environment - backgrounds might be constructed rather than found, lighting is artificial and controllable, subjects...Show more →
Dan, I am far more interested in seeing the data, and great effort put out by Jim. For me, this is VERY useful information, worth looking at and digesting, maybe asking a few questions, or suggesting some changes to methodology.
What is not useful is another long-winded pontificating post where you get up on your soapbox to tell everyone how they should think. Of course there is more than IQ involved in making a lens selection. Of course there is is point of diminishing returns. What do you take us for? A bunch of mindless stumble-bums? IMO, this detracts from the usefulness of this thread. Do you have any comments specifically directed at Jim's post? For example, I think Fred had a good point. Think on how you could contribute here rather than taking it as another opportunity to engage in excessive, unrequested pedagogical behavior.
ggreene wrote
Gunzorro wrote
Peter -- I agree. There is also the vignetting, which favors the 17TSE and Jim touched on it. Those four factors place the 17TSE well in advance of the 16-35II for flexibility. But, it is very encouraging that the zoom shows so well for its imaging: sharpness, contrast, color, etc. and most of the other minuses can be ameliorated with PP. Really a great showing, and a complete surprise to many readers who don't have either or both these lenses.As an example, let's consider two kinds of photographers - out of a wide range of types that you might imagine or even be yourself.
One is a product photographer who works in a relatively controlled shooting environment - backgrounds might be constructed rather than found, lighting is artificial and controllable, subjects...Show more →
Dan, I am far more interested in seeing the data, and great effort put out by Jim. For me, this is VERY useful information, worth looking at and digesting, maybe asking a few questions, or suggesting some changes to methodology.
What is not useful is another long-winded pontificating post where you get up on your soapbox to tell everyone how they should think. Of course there is more than IQ involved in making a lens selection. Of course there is is point of diminishing returns. What do you take us for? A bunch of mindless stumble-bums? IMO, this detracts from the usefulness of this thread. Do you have any comments specifically directed at Jim's post? For example, I think Fred had a good point. Think on how you could contribute here rather than taking it as another opportunity to engage in excessive, unrequested pedagogical behavior.
Jan 19, 2014 at 11:11 AM
p.4 #5Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
jcolwell wrote:
Where did you focus for your resolution tests? Infinity?
The TS-E 17mm is very sensitive to any slight focusing adjustment. Only 1mm can throw things OOF. I never focus on the center of the frame to account for field curvature. Even stepping down to f/8 or f/11 won't be enough for optimal edges when focusing straight on the center of the frame.
I try focusing somewhere from the center towards the edges. I really like this lens but where you focus is crucial for the center/edges resolution.
I'm rather surprised by your vignetting results. Vignetting and distortion are the big advantages of shooting with the TS-E 17mm. I would think it would be a least twice as better than the zoom.
FredFred,
All images were focused on the centre. For the "Set 1" harbour photos, the centre focus point was about 2/3 back in the field, compared with all of the crop areas. For the "Set 2" images, the centre focus point was in about the centre of the field. I think all of the corners are pretty good, for the 17 TS-E.
There was very little vignetting for the 17/4 TS-E. The big surprise for me was the low vignetting on the zoom.
Jim
I agree Jim. The edges are good but I believe could be even better when accounting for field curvature. I believe that if you had focused closer to edge area for both TS-E and zoom, the differences should be even more noticeable. I once owned the 16-35mm II and remember it also had noticeable field curvature but with a different shape.
Regarding vignetting...perhaps the zoom is a good performer at f/8 but it should not be even near the results from the TS-E wide open or stepped down to f/8. The vignette test may be more accurate under the same lighting conditions with a chart and without any post-processing.
Fred Miranda wrote
Jim,Where did you focus for your resolution tests? Infinity?
The TS-E 17mm is very sensitive to any slight focusing adjustment. Only 1mm can throw things OOF. I never focus on the center of the frame to account for field curvature. Even stepping down to f/8 or f/11 won't be enough for optimal edges when focusing straight on the center of the frame.
I try focusing somewhere from the center towards the edges. I really like this lens but where you focus is crucial for the center/edges resolution.
I'm rather surprised by your vignetting results. Vignetting and distortion are the big advantages of shooting with the TS-E 17mm. I would think it would be a least twice as better than the zoom.
Fred
All images were focused on the centre. For the "Set 1" harbour photos, the centre focus point was about 2/3 back in the field, compared with all of the crop areas. For the "Set 2" images, the centre focus point was in about the centre of the field. I think all of the corners are pretty good, for the 17 TS-E.
There was very little vignetting for the 17/4 TS-E. The big surprise for me was the low vignetting on the zoom.
Jim
I agree Jim. The edges are good but I believe could be even better when accounting for field curvature. I believe that if you had focused closer to edge area for both TS-E and zoom, the differences should be even more noticeable. I once owned the 16-35mm II and remember it also had noticeable field curvature but with a different shape.
Regarding vignetting...perhaps the zoom is a good performer at f/8 but it should not be even near the results from the TS-E wide open or stepped down to f/8. The vignette test may be more accurate under the same lighting conditions with a chart and without any post-processing.
Jan 19, 2014 at 11:24 AM
p.4 #6Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Fred Miranda wrote:
Regarding vignetting...perhaps the zoom is a good performer at f/8 but it should not be even near the results from the TS-E wide open or stepped down to f/8. The vignette test may be more accurate under the same lighting conditions with a chart and without any post-processing.
Good idea. I just had a look at my current studio setup, but it'll take a bit of moving stuff around. They're just so darn wide...
It'll have to wait until later, 'cause right now, it's football time!
Regarding vignetting...perhaps the zoom is a good performer at f/8 but it should not be even near the results from the TS-E wide open or stepped down to f/8. The vignette test may be more accurate under the same lighting conditions with a chart and without any post-processing.
Good idea. I just had a look at my current studio setup, but it'll take a bit of moving stuff around. They're just so darn wide...
It'll have to wait until later, 'cause right now, it's football time!
Jan 19, 2014 at 12:49 PM
p.4 #7Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
galenapass wrote:
Do you have any comments specifically directed at Jim's post?
I was replying directly to a point made in a previous post, from which I included an excerpt.
Feel free to not read posts of mine that you don't want to read. :-)
Da
Do you have any comments specifically directed at Jim's post?
I was replying directly to a point made in a previous post, from which I included an excerpt.
Feel free to not read posts of mine that you don't want to read. :-)
Da
Jan 19, 2014 at 01:02 PM
p.4 #8Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
retrofocus wrote:
Unfortunately you left out the most cost-effective lens option in this comparison, the 17-40/4 L which still delivers a great IQ.
Yeah, I just had to return my 16-35L II, all it took was 2 shots to realise I had a dog. I couldn't be bothered getting it fixed and just got a refund. My 10 yo 17-40L will be getting a few more years use barring some new offering from Canon or Sigma this year. 17-40L is just a great little lens.
Unfortunately you left out the most cost-effective lens option in this comparison, the 17-40/4 L which still delivers a great IQ.
Yeah, I just had to return my 16-35L II, all it took was 2 shots to realise I had a dog. I couldn't be bothered getting it fixed and just got a refund. My 10 yo 17-40L will be getting a few more years use barring some new offering from Canon or Sigma this year. 17-40L is just a great little lens.
Jan 19, 2014 at 02:49 PM
p.4 #9Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Thanks to Fred, I spent some time today focusing my 17TSE off center versus center. It does make a difference on edge and corner performance without hurting infinity, at least at my normal F8. This answers a problem I have noted from time to time. I thought it was me misfocusing, but it was really some physics I did not know about.
I also tried some into the sun shots. Great flare performance. I often get home with some off angle flare that I did not see at the time, now I know to look for it. But if you want a sun star, this is a great lens for that.
I also tried some into the sun shots. Great flare performance. I often get home with some off angle flare that I did not see at the time, now I know to look for it. But if you want a sun star, this is a great lens for that.
Jan 20, 2014 at 05:02 PM
p.4 #10Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Yeah, I just had to return my 16-35L II, all it took was 2 shots to realise I had a dog. I couldn't be bothered getting it fixed and just got a refund. My 10 yo 17-40L will be getting a few more years use barring some new offering from Canon or Sigma this year. 17-40L is just a great little lens.
I don't doubt that the 16-35/2.8 has its advantages in very specific situations over the 17-40/4. I can only speak for myself here - for all I need the 17-40/4, it is absolutely sufficient. I very rarely use it at faster aperture stops anyway, mostly between f/8 and f/16. I also like the 17-40/4 that it can be used perfectly in infrared light. Sorry to hear about your experience with the 16-35/2.8 II - looks like you got a lemon there.
retrofocus wrote
Unfortunately you left out the most cost-effective lens option in this comparison, the 17-40/4 L which still delivers a great IQ.I don't doubt that the 16-35/2.8 has its advantages in very specific situations over the 17-40/4. I can only speak for myself here - for all I need the 17-40/4, it is absolutely sufficient. I very rarely use it at faster aperture stops anyway, mostly between f/8 and f/16. I also like the 17-40/4 that it can be used perfectly in infrared light. Sorry to hear about your experience with the 16-35/2.8 II - looks like you got a lemon there.
Jan 20, 2014 at 05:47 PM
p.4 #11Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
retrofocus wrote:
Yeah, I just had to return my 16-35L II, all it took was 2 shots to realise I had a dog. I couldn't be bothered getting it fixed and just got a refund. My 10 yo 17-40L will be getting a few more years use barring some new offering from Canon or Sigma this year. 17-40L is just a great little lens.I don't doubt that the 16-35/2.8 has its advantages in very specific situations over the 17-40/4. I can only speak for myself here - for all I need the 17-40/4, it is absolutely sufficient. I very rarely use it at faster aperture stops anyway, mostly between f/8 and f/16. I also like the 17-40/4 that it can be used perfectly in infrared light. Sorry to hear about your experience with the 16-35/2.8 II - looks like you got a lemon there.
I use and like the 17-40, but that is specific to my own particular way of using the lens. The way I like to describe it is:
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot handheld in low light at the largest apertures on a full frame camera* the 16-35mm f/2.8 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot medium to small aperture subjects from the tripod on a full frame camera* the 17-40mm f/4 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
Other factors could play into this, including things like cost, size, bulk, filter size, integration with the rest of your lenses, and so forth.
* If you shoot a cropped sensor camera, neither of these lenses will be your best choice in most cases. The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS offers the larger f/2.8 aperture, a larger focal length range, image stabilization, and equal or better IQ on crop, for example.
YMMV.
Dan
Pixel Perfect wrote
retrofocus wrote
Unfortunately you left out the most cost-effective lens option in this comparison, the 17-40/4 L which still delivers a great IQ.I use and like the 17-40, but that is specific to my own particular way of using the lens. The way I like to describe it is:
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot handheld in low light at the largest apertures on a full frame camera* the 16-35mm f/2.8 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot medium to small aperture subjects from the tripod on a full frame camera* the 17-40mm f/4 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
Other factors could play into this, including things like cost, size, bulk, filter size, integration with the rest of your lenses, and so forth.
* If you shoot a cropped sensor camera, neither of these lenses will be your best choice in most cases. The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS offers the larger f/2.8 aperture, a larger focal length range, image stabilization, and equal or better IQ on crop, for example.
YMMV.
Dan
Jan 20, 2014 at 06:11 PM
p.4 #12Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
gdanmitchell wrote:
Yeah, I just had to return my 16-35L II, all it took was 2 shots to realise I had a dog. I couldn't be bothered getting it fixed and just got a refund. My 10 yo 17-40L will be getting a few more years use barring some new offering from Canon or Sigma this year. 17-40L is just a great little lens.I don't doubt that the 16-35/2.8 has its advantages in very specific situations over the 17-40/4. I can only speak for myself here - for all I need the 17-40/4, it is absolutely sufficient. I very rarely use it at faster aperture stops anyway, mostly between f/8 and f/16. I also like the 17-40/4 that it can be used perfectly in infrared light. Sorry to hear about your experience with the 16-35/2.8 II - looks like you got a lemon there.I use and like the 17-40, but that is specific to my own particular way of using the lens. The way I like to describe it is:
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot handheld in low light at the largest apertures on a full frame camera* the 16-35mm f/2.8 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot medium to small aperture subjects from the tripod on a full frame camera* the 17-40mm f/4 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
Other factors could play...Show more →
Regarding APS-C sensor: the 17-55 doesn't offer UWA effect of either the 16 or 17 on FF. You need to go to 10mm on APS-C to match the AOV of the 16mm on FF.
retrofocus wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
retrofocus wrote
Unfortunately you left out the most cost-effective lens option in this comparison, the 17-40/4 L which still delivers a great IQ.... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot handheld in low light at the largest apertures on a full frame camera* the 16-35mm f/2.8 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot medium to small aperture subjects from the tripod on a full frame camera* the 17-40mm f/4 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
Other factors could play...Show more →
Regarding APS-C sensor: the 17-55 doesn't offer UWA effect of either the 16 or 17 on FF. You need to go to 10mm on APS-C to match the AOV of the 16mm on FF.
Jan 20, 2014 at 08:01 PM
p.4 #13Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
ben egbert wrote:
Thanks to Fred, I spent some time today focusing my 17TSE off center versus center. It does make a difference on edge and corner performance without hurting infinity, at least at my normal F8. This answers a problem I have noted from time to time. I thought it was me misfocusing, but it was really some physics I did not know about.
I also tried some into the sun shots. Great flare performance. I often get home with some off angle flare that I did not see at the time, now I know to look for it. But if you...Show more →
Ben,
It does make a difference. With higher resolution cameras like the A7R, knowing this is crucial to achieve great center/edge performance from this lens.
One more time, I would like to thank Jim for his efforts comparing these lenses. Threads like this create great discussion.
Fred
Thanks to Fred, I spent some time today focusing my 17TSE off center versus center. It does make a difference on edge and corner performance without hurting infinity, at least at my normal F8. This answers a problem I have noted from time to time. I thought it was me misfocusing, but it was really some physics I did not know about.
I also tried some into the sun shots. Great flare performance. I often get home with some off angle flare that I did not see at the time, now I know to look for it. But if you...Show more →
Ben,
It does make a difference. With higher resolution cameras like the A7R, knowing this is crucial to achieve great center/edge performance from this lens.
One more time, I would like to thank Jim for his efforts comparing these lenses. Threads like this create great discussion.
Fred
Jan 21, 2014 at 08:43 PM
p.4 #15Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Gunzorro wrote:
Yeah, I just had to return my 16-35L II, all it took was 2 shots to realise I had a dog. I couldn't be bothered getting it fixed and just got a refund. My 10 yo 17-40L will be getting a few more years use barring some new offering from Canon or Sigma this year. 17-40L is just a great little lens.I don't doubt that the 16-35/2.8 has its advantages in very specific situations over the 17-40/4. I can only speak for myself here - for all I need the 17-40/4, it is absolutely sufficient. I very rarely use it at faster aperture stops anyway, mostly between f/8 and f/16. I also like the 17-40/4 that it can be used perfectly in infrared light. Sorry to hear about your experience with the 16-35/2.8 II - looks like you got a lemon there.I use and like the 17-40, but that is specific to my own particular way of using the lens. The way I like to describe it is:
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot handheld in low light at the largest apertures on a full frame camera* the 16-35mm f/2.8 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot medium to small aperture subjects from the tripod on a full frame camera* the 17-40mm f/4 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
Other factors could play into this, including things like cost, size, bulk, filter size, integration with the rest of your lenses, and so forth.
* If you shoot a cropped sensor camera, neither of these lenses will be your best choice in most cases. The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS offers the larger f/2.8 aperture, a larger focal length range, image stabilization, and equal or better IQ on crop, for example.
YMMV.
DanRegarding APS-C sensor: the 17-55 doesn't offer UWA effect of either the 16 or 17 on FF. You need to go to 10mm on APS-C to match the AOV of the 16mm on FF.
Joking ? Because it was easy to understand that in the footnote of his message, Dan was talking about the possible use of the 17-40 or 16-35 on APS-C. And thus he thought the 17-55, which gives more or less the same AoV (at least on its widest range) would be more suitable (BTW I don't completely agree with him regarding that, but that's OOS).
Back to this thread.
@Jim : many thanks for sharing with us. I appreciate the quality of your tests, and although I'm less interested in your next test about the 35 mm (it's my favored focal so I already have all what I need), I will have a look at it).
Regarding the 3 lenses of this test (always thinking that looking for a Oly Grail is a wild dream - both European and African ones!), it's a tough choice.
The TS-E 17 is IQ-wise a bit ahead (nearly a no-brainer) but it's field curvature as indicated by Fred is a bad news.
The 16-35 is the easiest to handle. But if it's interesting at 16 mm, it's much less at 24 or 35 mm*.
The Zeiss 18 is really the surprising outsider. Its test from Photozone was not bad, but not "marvellous" too (compared for example with the Zeiss 21). Now I understand better why you've praise it so much.
Anyway, thanks again for your test.
* My POV after I tested a 16-35 and compared it with my 24 and 35 primes.
PS: Why did you not include the 17-40 ?! :')
gdanmitchell wrote
retrofocus wrote
Pixel Perfect wrote
retrofocus wrote
Unfortunately you left out the most cost-effective lens option in this comparison, the 17-40/4 L which still delivers a great IQ.... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot handheld in low light at the largest apertures on a full frame camera* the 16-35mm f/2.8 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot medium to small aperture subjects from the tripod on a full frame camera* the 17-40mm f/4 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
Other factors could play into this, including things like cost, size, bulk, filter size, integration with the rest of your lenses, and so forth.
* If you shoot a cropped sensor camera, neither of these lenses will be your best choice in most cases. The EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS offers the larger f/2.8 aperture, a larger focal length range, image stabilization, and equal or better IQ on crop, for example.
YMMV.
Dan
Joking ? Because it was easy to understand that in the footnote of his message, Dan was talking about the possible use of the 17-40 or 16-35 on APS-C. And thus he thought the 17-55, which gives more or less the same AoV (at least on its widest range) would be more suitable (BTW I don't completely agree with him regarding that, but that's OOS).
Back to this thread.
@Jim : many thanks for sharing with us. I appreciate the quality of your tests, and although I'm less interested in your next test about the 35 mm (it's my favored focal so I already have all what I need), I will have a look at it).
Regarding the 3 lenses of this test (always thinking that looking for a Oly Grail is a wild dream - both European and African ones!), it's a tough choice.
The TS-E 17 is IQ-wise a bit ahead (nearly a no-brainer) but it's field curvature as indicated by Fred is a bad news.
The 16-35 is the easiest to handle. But if it's interesting at 16 mm, it's much less at 24 or 35 mm*.
The Zeiss 18 is really the surprising outsider. Its test from Photozone was not bad, but not "marvellous" too (compared for example with the Zeiss 21). Now I understand better why you've praise it so much.
Anyway, thanks again for your test.
* My POV after I tested a 16-35 and compared it with my 24 and 35 primes.
PS: Why did you not include the 17-40 ?! :')
Jan 24, 2014 at 03:25 PM
p.4 #16Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
gdanmitchell wrote:
I use and like the 17-40, but that is specific to my own particular way of using the lens. The way I like to describe it is:
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot handheld in low light at the largest apertures on a full frame camera* the 16-35mm f/2.8 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot medium to small aperture subjects from the tripod on a full frame camera* the 17-40mm f/4 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
Other factors could play...Show more →
Someone in the quote sequence replied:
Regarding APS-C sensor: the 17-55 doesn't offer UWA effect of either the 16 or 17 on FF. You need to go to 10mm on APS-C to match the AOV of the 16mm on FF.
Correct
Larate wrote:
Joking ? Because it was easy to understand that in the footnote of his message, Dan was talking about the possible use of the 17-40 or 16-35 on APS-C. And thus he thought the 17-55, which gives more or less the same AoV (at least on its widest range) would be more suitable (BTW I don't completely agree with him regarding that, but that's OOS).
Exactly In fact, that was precisely my point - namely that if you are a full frame shooter looking for a zoom lens that covers the [16mm-or17]mm-[whatever]mm range your choice between the 17-40 or the 16-35mm could depend on the factors I mentioned, but that if you are a cropped sensor shooter looking for a zoom with that focal length range there is a very good chance that your best option might lie elsewhere. (And, yes, for some that might not be the EFS 17-55, but I didn't want to go into the whole question of which other options might also be good for that purpose.)
Dan
I use and like the 17-40, but that is specific to my own particular way of using the lens. The way I like to describe it is:
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot handheld in low light at the largest apertures on a full frame camera* the 16-35mm f/2.8 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
... if you need an ultra wide zoom to shoot medium to small aperture subjects from the tripod on a full frame camera* the 17-40mm f/4 is likely your best bet photographically and your best value.
Other factors could play...Show more →
Someone in the quote sequence replied:
Regarding APS-C sensor: the 17-55 doesn't offer UWA effect of either the 16 or 17 on FF. You need to go to 10mm on APS-C to match the AOV of the 16mm on FF.
Correct
Larate wrote:
Joking ? Because it was easy to understand that in the footnote of his message, Dan was talking about the possible use of the 17-40 or 16-35 on APS-C. And thus he thought the 17-55, which gives more or less the same AoV (at least on its widest range) would be more suitable (BTW I don't completely agree with him regarding that, but that's OOS).
Exactly In fact, that was precisely my point - namely that if you are a full frame shooter looking for a zoom lens that covers the [16mm-or17]mm-[whatever]mm range your choice between the 17-40 or the 16-35mm could depend on the factors I mentioned, but that if you are a cropped sensor shooter looking for a zoom with that focal length range there is a very good chance that your best option might lie elsewhere. (And, yes, for some that might not be the EFS 17-55, but I didn't want to go into the whole question of which other options might also be good for that purpose.)
Dan
Jan 24, 2014 at 03:34 PM
p.4 #17Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Larate wrote:
PS: Why did you not include the 17-40 ?! :')
I sold it in 2011.
I've owned a lot of lenses, but I don't keep all of them.
PS: Why did you not include the 17-40 ?! :')
I sold it in 2011.
I've owned a lot of lenses, but I don't keep all of them.
Jan 24, 2014 at 03:36 PM
p.4 #18Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
(I was joking of course.)
Have you posted your test about the 35 mm ? I don't want to put you under pressure, just to know if my failed search was because of me or not (my parents always told me not to go to the uncivilized world like the alt forum! :')
BTW, there's a missing thing in the search form (at least I did not found it). To be able to restrict the search on posts created by someone. Sure I can list all your posts, but you write too many messages that I surely would catch a hay fever, niark niark!!!
Have a nice week-end
Have you posted your test about the 35 mm ? I don't want to put you under pressure, just to know if my failed search was because of me or not (my parents always told me not to go to the uncivilized world like the alt forum! :')
BTW, there's a missing thing in the search form (at least I did not found it). To be able to restrict the search on posts created by someone. Sure I can list all your posts, but you write too many messages that I surely would catch a hay fever, niark niark!!!
Have a nice week-end
Jan 24, 2014 at 03:51 PM
p.4 #19Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
(I wasn't)
My Alt 35mm comparison is ready to go*, but not the Canon version - it includes the "usual suspects", speaking zoom-wise. I'd like to post them at the same time, but I'm waiting for you-know-who to get off his duff...
I also shot a test series at 24mm, but I found in PP that the 24-70/2.8L II was at 28mm.
Stupid lenses! 
I expect that the next time that we'll get the requisite warmish temperatures (i.e. above 0 deg. C) here in NS, plus no precipitation, will be in April 2016.
You have a nice weekend, too.
* which is why I've been looking for (and found) an SMC Pentax-FA 35/3.5 to compare with (and hopefully replace) my M645 C 35/3.5N.
My Alt 35mm comparison is ready to go*, but not the Canon version - it includes the "usual suspects", speaking zoom-wise. I'd like to post them at the same time, but I'm waiting for you-know-who to get off his duff...
I also shot a test series at 24mm, but I found in PP that the 24-70/2.8L II was at 28mm.
Stupid lenses! I expect that the next time that we'll get the requisite warmish temperatures (i.e. above 0 deg. C) here in NS, plus no precipitation, will be in April 2016.
You have a nice weekend, too.
* which is why I've been looking for (and found) an SMC Pentax-FA 35/3.5 to compare with (and hopefully replace) my M645 C 35/3.5N.
Jan 24, 2014 at 04:20 PM
p.4 #20Lens tests, 17mm/18mm
Fred Miranda wrote:
Thanks for the tests Jim.
It does not seem you are taking in consideration field curvature. The TS-E 17mm has a mild field curvature and therefore you need to focus on the center to evaluate center resolution and extreme edges to evaluate that area.
An easy field curvature test is to use Live View with the lens wide open.
A test chart or newspaper taped to a wall can work well. Focus at center, then move the focusing point towards the edges, observing image sharpness. Refocus off-center and determine if the image becomes sharper-if so, you're seeing field curvature (assuming you've...Show more →
I am still using "your" 17mm TS-E Fred and I love it! To be truthful I have never encountered vignetting with this lens and the centers are also tack sharp.
Thanks for the info! You also "JC"!
Dan
Thanks for the tests Jim.
It does not seem you are taking in consideration field curvature. The TS-E 17mm has a mild field curvature and therefore you need to focus on the center to evaluate center resolution and extreme edges to evaluate that area.
An easy field curvature test is to use Live View with the lens wide open.
A test chart or newspaper taped to a wall can work well. Focus at center, then move the focusing point towards the edges, observing image sharpness. Refocus off-center and determine if the image becomes sharper-if so, you're seeing field curvature (assuming you've...Show more →
I am still using "your" 17mm TS-E Fred and I love it! To be truthful I have never encountered vignetting with this lens and the centers are also tack sharp.
Thanks for the info! You also "JC"!
Dan
Feb 08, 2021 at 10:14 AM