p.12 #1 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Mark
Thanks for your hard work testing the lenses. I don't think we can expect people to do perfect tests unless we pay them and even then you get what you pay for. I am always hesitate to criticize a volunteer effort. All we can expect is for the process and assumptions to be documented along with the results so we can fairly evaluate the effort for our own purposes. I think you do an outstanding job of this.
Speaking of your tests, any idea when we will see the new tests of the Nikon 14-24 against the other lenses (e.g., CZ21, 16-35II) ?
p.12 #2 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Mark, I think it's only reasonable to address the remarks above:
You've said before that L lenses don't have excessive sample variation, and talk about your perfect 24L you got on your first try, as an example. But then you sell a 17-40L and talk about how it was the best out of six you tried.
I really appreciate your tests too, but I think these comments require more than simply telling Paul to go away, and sample variation, in my experience, is more of a problem than is generally acknowledged. Regards, KL
The above is entirely true: I had one peach of a 17-40L and I sold it. There may be better ones out there, but not that I've seen or used and I tried many. I eventually found a very good Sigma 12-24 which I thought I'd never sell but it's just been replaced by the Nikon 14-24.
I've only ever used one 24L: as I've said many times elsewhere, I may well have got lucky on the first try or, as Andrew Gough has indicated, maybe people aren't focusing properly: there is tricky field curvature to contend with painfully evident at such a wide aperture as f1.4. For me, the jury's out on the design I can't comment on anyone else's copy but mine is brilliant.
I'm mystified by comments that impute some ulterior motive to all this. I've never said anything that conflicts remotely with the idea that mass-produced lenses vary from sample to sample. I've summarised all my 'sample variation' experience in the appropriate thread.
On my site, you'll usually find that several copies of easily-obtainable, mass produced lenses are tried: in the case of the 17-40L, no less than 6; in the case of the Sigma 12-24mm, at least 5. I even owned a Zeiss 21mm that looked a bit off-colour once. However, it's very difficult to obtain for instance 5 copies of the Olympus 18mm for testing. The one I used was kindly loaned to me, and the owner was very happy with it. But as I said repeatedly, if someone can loan me a better one, I'd be happy to publish a comparative test with the 14-24 and credit them throughout the review.
p.12 #4 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
I'm mystified by comments that impute some ulterior motive to all this.
Please be clear that I am not impugning you here, or alluding to any ulterior motive; I am simply pointing to what appears to be a simple contradiction and one that is not addressed, as far as I can see, on the thread you point to immediately above.
Mark, I worked in relevant logic for years, in Masters and PhD research, and my area was contradictions. My work suggests that there are none, in reality, only in our depictions (descriptions) of reality. I am sure that some additional info. from you here will show that what might appear to be a contradiction is just a lack of context, or insufficient information. I am not wishing to get into a disagreement with you here, but IMHO, your remarks to Paul were dismissive rather then helpfulat least, to an uninvolved observer, that's how it appeared. Best wishes, KL
p.12 #6 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
AJ, thanks and I agree, this is completely OT; sorry about that. All the time I spent doing that research, close to ten year's worth, led to the books I am better known for these days, and the workshops.... My experience is that you have absolutely no idea where the things you do for interest, or pleasure, lead to, if you do them thoroughly enough!
One of the things I most like about this forum, though, to get back on topic, is the remarkable civility and responsiveness of everyone here. Thanks to all, kl.
p.12 #7 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Dismissive yes, but not unprovoked or inappropriate if you read back the thread. The seeds of the dispute appear to lie in the fact that I'm reluctant to award kudos unreservedly to pdmphoto's 18mm. His samples look very nice as I keep saying but they are not contextualised. So the reaction can only be . . . meh.
The only way to asses the relative merits of lenses is to scrutinise them on an level playing field with all factors optimised: (ideally) best sample, best-matched adaptor, same body, same time, same light, same target, same PP workflow. Without that, 'my lens is better than yours' discussions are merely hot air. Please, let's get together a nominal Olympus 18mm and the 14-24G on a 1Ds III and we'll sort it out.
From day one, I've maintained that lenses vary from copy to copy and zoom lenses have particular consistency issues. I tried many 17-40Ls before finding a good one; my first 24L was excellent. Several inferences can be drawn from this but none are contradictory.
Olympus really pushed the envelope when it came to new designs, but rarely charged Leica prices: perhaps it's not surprising that most testers report greater-than-average variation among Olympus samples.
p.12 #8 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Mark
Where are in the UK are you based - I now have a nice condition Zuiko 18mm you can sample test - but from, my back to testing on a DsII it echoes your thoughts the Distagon is sharper in the centre, the Zuiko performs better at the edges - at least with my two lenses it did.
on balance I prefer the Zuiko and am now looking to sell my Distagon and filter adapter
p.12 #9 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Hi Mike: that might be ideal . . . but would you say yours performs as well as pdmphoto's? I'm reluctant to re-run a third sample test unless I'm convinced this one is best-of-breed. What do you think?
p.12 #10 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Mark
I will shoot some test pictures this weekend and send you the files - I use cameraquaest adapters on both lens systems so the test should be fairly consistant/equal
p.12 #12 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Mark,
While on the topic of sample variation...would you like me to send you my new 14-24G for testing/comparison? I'm in the states, but would gladly pay shipping both ways...in the name of science.
Cheers,
Scott
p.12 #13 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
For curiosity, I would be interested to see how D3 and 1DsIII, both FF, handle the same lens, say Nikon 14-24, light fallof in corners. Anyone able to do such comparison ?
p.12 #14 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
I have not received any PM, but my lens is in limbo, as it may have a new home soon (pending payment).
Due to limited funds, I can't keep my newly aquired Nikon 14-24G and Kodak SLR/n, without selling of some prized gear. That means my Zuiko 18/3.5 and Zuiko 24/3.5 shift.
I'm still not sure I am making the right decision, and if the Zuiko 18 deal falls through you might just see my 14-24 up for sale.
I'm working full time, going to school full time, and my wife and I are having our first child in May. During my Holiday breaks, I spent more time than I would have liked defending the excellent Zuiko 18/3.5. With the breaks over, I don't have time to be a regular participant in this forum, let alone buy and test alternative lenses, like I have in the past. It's been fun, but it takes time and resources which are now in short supply.
And as a final word for now, I'd want to say that after testing well close to 100 lenses on my SLR/c in the last couple of years, I know a good lens when I see it. No amount of post processing can make a mediocre lens look great on 100% crops. Concerning post processing, I'm using Photo CS (orignal version) and don't use any actions or utilities. Straight up CS.
hubsand wrote:
I'll start a new thread: I'd like Paul (pdmphoto's) involvement in this, too. I'll PM you about a possible meet . . .
p.12 #15 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
I'd have bought it!! With such confidence in yours being a nominal sample, I'd have loved to get hold of it to test against the Nikon . . . wait a minute, though, aren't we supposed to be dead against these pump-and-dump strategies? First you post samples in the wrong thread saying how amazing your 18mm is, then you sell it . . . ? It would be very interesting to see a Kodak-based 18mm v 14-24G comparison before you let it go.
Still, though, if I can get hold of an 18mm (I'm in conversation with MIKE via PM about it) to test, I will. Or Paul if the new owner of your 18mm would be cooperative about geting together on it, that would be fine.
p.12 #17 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Mark
Briefly saw your pm this am before coming to work, I will phone you tonight - unfortunately the 18mm DsII files I shot at the weekend are too big for AOL to send over to you by e-mail.
p.12 #20 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Wow -- the 14-24mm is really looking like THE wide angle lens, zoom or otherwise. I can't wait to see the 21mm and 24mm tests, to see how far it falls short of the Distagon 21mm or Canon 24mm L. I'd also be interested in a flatness of field of focus/effective depth of field comparison, especially with the Distagon 21mm. In other words, I've found that one of the biggest factors limiting near/far compositions with 35mm (i.e., the classic view camera landscape scenario), is that the field of focus curves in the corners of wide angles lenses, like the Oly 18mm. How flat is the field of focus for the Nikon 14-24mm at 21mm, and how does the actual, real life, depth of field of it compare to the Distagon 21mm at, say, f11 and f16?
