I am looking for real world experiences from people who used both and deeply care about corner to corner per pixel sharpness at all apertures below f/10.
16-35mm is a lens with good color rendition, contrast, very good flare and ghosting resistance but not so great on sharpness. It has to be my weakest lens there particuarly on the ends of the zoom (all others are ART primes). Just barely OK for 24MP sensors (struggling on 5D3 actually), and unusable at 50. I rarely use it wide open, but vignetting is insane there. At least it doesn't distort like a fisheye.
I have in fact checked MTF graphs of both, and both appear similarly uninspiring towards the edges. I checked Sony GM2 and that was a whole new game, and same for Sigma 14-24mm. I guess it is just me looking for a confirmation to skip the RF lens and buy the Sony body and lens.
tomasr wrote:
Let's be realistic. Dropping 14 grand is not really an option. I am a profit seeking business, not an ultra rich kid with money to burn.
If you must ask - architecture, some landscapes. I am getting fed up with smudged edges left and right, mostly right...
I was being very realistic-
A Hasseblad X1d2 can be had for well under 3K today- Plus a lens or two and you have a much better kit than you can get with a sony/canon zoom-
Simplified menu's- Button that takes you directly to infiniti- Much Better Pixel pitch ratio with a 50MP medium format sensor etc. Another nice to have is calculation of exposure beyond 30 seconds- Not always needed but nice to have it give you a baseline-
Seems like a much better investment than just jumping ship into another FF format.
Heck- Even the Fuji GFX 100MP systems are selling for well under 3K today.
If I only shot landscape and was truly worried about edge to edge IQ, FF isn't what I would be hunting-
To answer your question though, the RF version is better but not perfect. Some degradation at the long end on my copy but better than the EF version.
I have used the Sony 16-35 v2- Its a very nice lens but you have to attach it to a Sony body- Which negates any pluses with the lens lineup for my preference.
Just saying- If you are looking to switch and only shoot landscape, look at all the options in the market since some are much better suited at covering your needs more than just another FF kit-
A Hasseblad X1d2 can be had for well under 3K today- Plus a lens or two and you have a much better kit than you can get with a sony/canon zoom-
Simplified menu's- Button that takes you directly to infiniti- Much Better Pixel pitch ratio with a 50MP medium format sensor etc. Another nice to have is calculation of exposure beyond 30 seconds- Not always needed but nice to have it give you a baseline-
Seems like a much better investment than just jumping ship into another FF format.
Heck- Even the Fuji GFX 100MP systems are selling for well under 3K today.
If I only shot landscape and was truly worried about edge to edge IQ, FF isn't what I would be hunting-
To answer your question though, the RF version is better but not perfect. Some degradation at the long end on my copy but better than the EF version.
I have used the Sony 16-35 v2- Its a very nice lens but you have to attach it to a Sony body- Which negates any pluses with the lens lineup for my preference.
Just saying- If you are looking to switch and only shoot landscape, look at all the options in the market since some are much better suited at covering your needs more than just another FF kit- ...Show more →
some yuuuge assumptions there. I said I shoot architecture and landscape on THAT lens. Like what else would you shoot on it? There is a tone more work outside of, including lifestyle shots, portraits, even an odd video... which hasselbland can't even do. Slow fps, very limited choice in other lens, slow lenses... Can they even match Sigma ART primes from 28mm onwards? Doubt it to be honest. It would cost me like a new premium SUV to replace the lot. Basically fantasy land.
Choosing between RF body and E mount body are all big compromises. I don't like either form factor. Z8 or GFX100 II are so much nicer. However lens choice again.... you either get good lens, or good body, not both.
tomasr wrote:
I am looking for real world experiences from people who used both and deeply care about corner to corner per pixel sharpness at all apertures below f/10.
16-35mm is a lens with good color rendition, contrast, very good flare and ghosting resistance but not so great on sharpness. It has to be my weakest lens there particuarly on the ends of the zoom (all others are ART primes). Just barely OK for 24MP sensors (struggling on 5D3 actually), and unusable at 50. I rarely use it wide open, but vignetting is insane there. At least it doesn't distort like a fisheye.
I have in fact checked MTF graphs of both, and both appear similarly uninspiring towards the edges. I checked Sony GM2 and that was a whole new game, and same for Sigma 14-24mm. I guess it is just me looking for a confirmation to skip the RF lens and buy the Sony body and lens....Show more →
If you want the ultimate sharpness, the Sony 12-24mm f2.8 GM is it, followed by their 14mm f1.8 GM, 16mm f1.8 G, and 20mm f1.8 G lenses - or a sharp copy of the 16-35mm f2.8 GM II. You're spoiled for choice in the Sony system.
I was never really happy with the Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 III. The corner sharpness and vignetting were pretty bad, although that was before we had DxO lens corrections, which might have helped. I was pretty happy with the (corrected) optical quality RF 15-35mm f2.8, but not the weight; I traded it for the RF 14-35mm f4 (which does have some softness in the extreme corners).
Cliff L. wrote:
If you want the ultimate sharpness, the Sony 12-24mm f2.8 GM is it, followed by their 14mm f1.8 GM, 16mm f1.8 G, and 20mm f1.8 G lenses - or a sharp copy of the 16-35mm f2.8 GM II. You're spoiled for choice in the Sony system.
I was never really happy with the Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 III. The corner sharpness and vignetting were pretty bad, although that was before we had DxO lens corrections, which might have helped. I was pretty happy with the (corrected) optical quality RF 15-35mm f2.8, but not the weight; I traded it for the RF 14-35mm f4 (which does have some softness in the extreme corners)....Show more →
Does that imply there are significant number of unsharp sony 1635 ii? I really have no need to go under 15/16mm, and really like the option of more than 24mm before reaching for another lens, although that would be technically survivable. I have excellent 28mm and 35mm primes.
I really couldn't care less how much a lens weighs on my 5kg tripod. Just a fact of life. Maybe except big ones should come with a foot to better balance it out.
At what apertures did you find 15-35mm acceptable and on what body? Presumably distortion is not much worse than iii. 14-35 is basically a fisheye.
Cliff L. wrote:
It seems to be the case with the first batch, every time Sony comes out with a new zoom lens...
I pretty much only shoot at f8, and focus stack if necessary. The corrected images have little or no distortion with either the 15-35 or 14-35.
corrections lead to softness and loss of resolution, and is particularly pronounced on lower resolution cameras like R6. You have more pixels to "burn" for transformations on R5, but still won't help if you print A1+. I am definitely not considering 14-35; no need for 14mm either
I can reluctantly accept up to 3-4% distortion correction, as I may also do a minor fake shift transformation. Straight verticals trumps everything. It is however such a relief to shoot straight on ART primes and never have to correct for anything. The bump in resolution is almost unbelievable until you see it side by side.
