p.14 #4 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
hartgebm wrote:
Is it just me, or am I the only one that has thought that considering how good canon were able to make the new 17-55 f2.8 IS, that the new 16-35 should be an absolute ripper based on what they were able to achieve with the EFS.
Well one is a standard zoom and the other is a wide-angle zoom - simple.
p.14 #5 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
In my book, all Canon has to do to reign supreme is to make a 21mm equal or better than the cz21. I would immediately purchase a full frame Canon to exploit it.
By the same token I agree with those who say it is nonsensical to compare the cz21 with a zoom. Like comparing a diamond to a coke bottle.
Mar 08, 2007 at 03:07 AM
Andi Dietrich Offline [X]
p.14 #6 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Grant808 wrote:
Okay...figured out that's the 17-40 wide MTF...
Bingo
and here the long end of the 17-40 and the 16-35II
p.14 #8 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Grant808 wrote:
Okay...figured out that's the 17-40 wide MTF...
So for the 17-40 owners looking to upgrade, this is my general analysis on the wide end:
Good news:
Should perform a bit better at f/2.8 than the 17-40 at f4. One more stop with basically no 'penalties'. Includes being a little better in the corners and should be less CA. Excellent sharpness wide open in the very center (like the 24-105 at f/4).
1.3x corners and FF corners and edges will be much better stopped down. Corner contrast, sharpness, and CA will be noticably better.
Bad news:
Less contrast and sharpness stopped down for all formats in most of the center. Will probably be noticable in direct comparisons.
p.14 #9 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
"By the same token I agree with those who say it is nonsensical to compare the cz21 with a zoom. Like comparing a diamond to a coke bottle. "
Yes, you're right, they do serve two distinctly difference purposes and it is silly to compare the two. Imagine, some fool trying to fashion a commercially viable coke bottle out of diamonds. Now that is silly.
p.14 #11 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Andrew Gough wrote:
Just out of curiosity, could you perform a comparison of the new lenses theoretical mtf vs the Contax 17-35's actual?
[url=http://www.contaxusa.com/docs/mtf/660050_mtf.pdf
thanks]http://www.contaxusa.com/docs/mtf/660050_mtf.pdf
thanks[/url] Andy
Andy,
I'd hesitate to compare actual MTFs to theoretical ones. I've already looked at the Contax 17-35 MTFs...since before I've been considering buying your copies for sale (you still have one left, yes?) But I'm thinking I'd defer to the 16-9 testing, and that the new Canon should perform close to the Nikon now...and that the test should be similar, showing lumps in the Contax performance in Mark's 'B' zone at the pixel level.
Another problem with the comparison (from my point of view at least) is that Contax only provided data for f/2.8 and f/5.6 when I am mostly interested in f/8 through f/16 where I will use it and have seen absolutely stellar examples in the higher f-stop ranges (your shots included - very, very nice btw)
bathman wrote:
Bingo
and here the long end of the 17-40 and the 16-35II
p.14 #12 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Not such great news for the 16-35 here...
But first, the 17-40 has the 'advantage' of being a longer focal length so take my comments with a grain of salt...
Converted the 17-40 f/8 blue to red, and highlighted the f/4 black with light green.
Wide open they're close, but the 16-35 II is trailing a little...so I'd expect the 16-35 to be better when both are at f/4. It's hard to tell, because there is not much improvement going from f/2.8 to f/8 at 35mm. Let's hope that's because of a peak in performance in the middle somewhere near f/5.6, but IDK. CA wide open might not be good on the 16-35, but should be better stopped down.
At f/8 the 17-40 will have noticably higher contrast throughout. The 17-40 will have much better center sharpness(exellent), and the 16-35 will have more even sharpness across the frame (very good), but I'll call the sharpness similar in the corners.
Generally, I'd call the 16-35 prettly close in performance with only mild tradeoffs for the extra stop. The biggest tradeoff is contrast stopped down which should be noticeable in direct comparison (16-35 very good, 17-40 excellent).
Can't wait to find out if I'm right or not :P
Mar 08, 2007 at 01:15 PM
Andi Dietrich Offline [X]
p.14 #13 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Thanks Grant, I also wonder what Canon will bring on the tables with this lens.
p.14 #14 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Grant808 wrote:
Andy,
I'd hesitate to compare actual MTFs to theoretical ones.
Oh well, I guess the curiosity got the best of me...I hope this doesn't open up the big can-o'-worms.
Curves look surprisingly close at 10 LP/mm so contrast should be similar. Contax should be a little sharper in the very center and corner, but the Canon should have more 'even' sharpness across the frame and possibly better CA. Absolute sharpness it tough to evaluate since Contax is a little better Tangentially and the Canon is much better Sagittally and the need to interpolate between canons 30 LP/mm vs the Contax 20 and 40 LP/mm. Canon might be noticeably better in the corners for vignetting or fall-off (the very end of the Contax data is not shown).
Contax in green at 17mm f/2.8 (for others that may not know, Contax shows 10, 20, and 40 LP/mm) :
p.14 #15 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Canon looks generally better across the board here...
And vs. the Nikon 17-35/2.8 (I'm not sure I have the right version, but here it is) at 17mm wide open 10 and 30 LP/mm (so only compare to red to thick Canon black lines and purple to Canon thin lines, not blue):
p.14 #16 · 'Master' EF 16–35mm f/2.8L II USM Thread
Thanks,
we need to remember that the Zeiss data is measured vs the theoretic for the Canon. Here are the MTF's for the old Canon 17-35mm, how do they compare to photodo's
