p.10 #1 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
I have no particular bias for or against Canon lenses. I have had the opportunity to test multiple samples of certain Canon lenses simply because they are more widely available – but then again, the same applies to the Sigma and Tamron lenses I've tested. Occasionally, I'm even able to get direct-from-factory checked and calibrated copies (but obviously not from Olympus!)
There are also financial constraints: it's hard to justify keeping $10K tied up for weeks or months on end in multiple samples of exotic lenses. I have to be conscious of not paying over the odds for the lenses I test, otherwise I get hit hard on the resale, so it can take some months to accumulate several good copies of – say, an Olympus 18mm at a sensible price. Then there are multiple adaptor issues to contend with . . .
Sometimes I beat myself up about all this variation and how it might compromise the reliability of the tests, but then I remind myself that we're all in the same boat here, and if a lens (like the Olympus 21mm) is prone to sample variation, am I doing the community a service or a dis-service in publishing test results from a randomly selected sample? Your chance of finding a better one at first try is the same as mine; if there are lots of bad copies out there, it's a factor that shouldn't be ignored.
Often people email me to complain that their sample looks better than mine, but this is very frequently because what they're looking at is unflatteringly juxtaposed against a better lens and they've just not looking at their results critically enough – or at least in comparison with an alternative.
On the flipside, I still get disbelieving mail about how good 'my' 24L is. All I can do is shrug my shoulders and tell them it was a used Adorama item I paid $900 for that somehow survived a transatlantic crossing and two country's postal systems and still works great. If yours doesn't, you might try another copy.
As time goes by, many of the earlier tests are put into perspective by later ones, and will be updated or changed where appropriate. I have a hunch that the Olympus 18 v Leica 19 test may have been compromised by an Zuiko adaptor irregularity, but I can't confirm it without another copy. However, it's not the only Zuiko 18 test on the site, and the results are not miles apart.
Another reason I'm not in a rush to revisit that test (or the Nikon 14mm, which seems a little suspect in hindsight) has to do with the reason the site exists in the first place: it's not really motivated by a desire to conduct an all inclusive survey of the world's lenses: it's a quest to find the best – and I've not seen any Olympus 18mm samples that offer any clue that it would outperform the 16-35L II or the Nikon 14-24G, so in my fickle way I've decided it's not worth the bother of adapting any more. However, a retest of the Nikon 14mm v the Tamron, Sigma, Canon L II equivalents and the Nikon zoom seems timely in the near future.
After the holiday I will get the 17mm and longer tests of the 14-24mm online, but I'm trying to forget about work (or even the website!) for a few days, so please bear with me.
p.10 #2 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Mark,
I really respect the work you do and your website. It shows dedication and passion. Before someone cries foul regarding favoritism or what not, they should track down samples for you to test. It is a gargantuan undertaking to create a databse of such exotic and expensive lenses. That is something we should all understand as photographers. Many of us will not even be able to obtain or afford even one of the lenses you test, let alone multiple copies.
hubsand wrote:
I have no particular bias for or against Canon lenses. I have had the opportunity to test multiple samples of certain Canon lenses simply because they are more widely available – but then again, the same applies to the Sigma and Tamron lenses I've tested. Occasionally, I'm even able to get direct-from-factory checked and calibrated copies (but obviously not from Olympus!)
There are also financial constraints: it's hard to justify keeping $10K tied up for weeks or months on end in multiple samples of exotic lenses. I have to be conscious of not paying over the odds for the lenses I test, otherwise I get hit hard on the resale, so it can take some months to accumulate several good copies of – say, an Olympus 18mm at a sensible price. Then there are multiple adaptor issues to contend with . . .
Sometimes I beat myself up about all this variation and how it might compromise the reliability of the tests, but then I remind myself that we're all in the same boat here, and if a lens (like the Olympus 21mm) is prone to sample variation, am I doing the community a service or a dis-service in publishing test results from a randomly selected sample? Your chance of finding a better one at first try is the same as mine; if there are lots of bad copies out there, it's a factor that shouldn't be ignored.
Often people email me to complain that their sample looks better than mine, but this is very frequently because what they're looking at is unflatteringly juxtaposed against a better lens and they've just not looking at their results critically enough – or at least in comparison with an alternative.
On the flipside, I still get disbelieving mail about how good 'my' 24L is. All I can do is shrug my shoulders and tell them it was a used Adorama item I paid $900 for that somehow survived a transatlantic crossing and two country's postal systems and still works great. If yours doesn't, you might try another copy.
As time goes by, many of the earlier tests are put into perspective by later ones, and will be updated or changed where appropriate. I have a hunch that the Olympus 18 v Leica 19 test may have been compromised by an Zuiko adaptor irregularity, but I can't confirm it without another copy. However, it's not the only Zuiko 18 test on the site, and the results are not miles apart.
Another reason I'm not in a rush to revisit that test (or the Nikon 14mm, which seems a little suspect in hindsight) has to do with the reason the site exists in the first place: it's not really motivated by a desire to conduct an all inclusive survey of the world's lenses: it's a quest to find the best – and I've not seen any Olympus 18mm samples that offer any clue that it would outperform the 16-35L II or the Nikon 14-24G, so in my fickle way I've decided it's not worth the bother of adapting any more. However, a retest of the Nikon 14mm v the Tamron, Sigma, Canon L II equivalents and the Nikon zoom seems timely in the near future.
After the holiday I will get the 17mm and longer tests of the 14-24mm online, but I'm trying to forget about work (or even the website!) for a few days, so please bear with me....Show more →
p.10 #4 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Mark,
I have made several corner crops available here, as did previous members of the Alternative image thread. For instance, I know Mike Hatam did extensive tests that he posted. Here's another of mine I've posted before but you don't acknowledge. Am I seeing something that isn't there? BTW, I own the Nikon 14-24/2.8 and use it without an adapter on the same sensor I use the Zuiko 18/3.5 on. Stopped down the Zuiko 18/3.5 is at least as good of a performer across the frame, and likely better.
Here's the pic with center and edge crops. The bottom is cropped from the full frame, so the upper left edge is true. These links will only be active for a couple days:
hubsand wrote:
As time goes by, many of the earlier tests are put into perspective by later ones, and will be updated or changed where appropriate. I have a hunch that the Olympus 18 v Leica 19 test may have been compromised by an Zuiko adaptor irregularity, but I can't confirm it without another copy. However, it's not the only Zuiko 18 test on the site, and the results are not miles apart.
Another reason I'm not in a rush to revisit that test (or the Nikon 14mm, which seems a little suspect in hindsight) has to do with the reason the site exists in the first place: it's not really motivated by a desire to conduct an all inclusive survey of the world's lenses: it's a quest to find the best – and I've not seen any Olympus 18mm samples that offer any clue that it would outperform the 16-35L II or the Nikon 14-24G, so in my fickle way I've decided it's not worth the bother of adapting any more. However, a retest of the Nikon 14mm v the Tamron, Sigma, Canon L II equivalents and the Nikon zoom seems timely in the near future. ...Show more →
p.10 #5 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Looking at the 100% crop of the corner it looks like I didn't do my best job with post processing that image. I did that well over a year ago. If I did it today it would look even better.
It should also be noted that the Zuiko 18/3.5 has some of the lowest distortion of all the (super) wide angle lenses.
The Kodak SLR/x's show the worst of any lens, including the Zuiko 18/3.5 (on my SLR/c) and the Nikon 14-24/2.8 (on my SLR/n). These two lenses are the best wide angle solutions I have found.
p.10 #6 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Your shot into the rising sun has eight pointed hoshi, does your 18mm OM have an eight bladed iris?
Dan pdmphoto wrote:
Mark,
I have made several corner crops available here, as did previous members of the Alternative image thread. For instance, I know Mike Hatam did extensive tests that he posted. Here's another of mine I've posted before but you don't acknowledge. Am I seeing something that isn't there? BTW, I own the Nikon 14-24/2.8 and use it without an adapter on the same sensor I use the Zuiko 18/3.5 on. Stopped down the Zuiko 18/3.5 is at least as good of a performer across the frame, and likely better.
Here's the pic with center and edge crops. The bottom is cropped from the full frame, so the upper left edge is true. These links will only be active for a couple days:
p.10 #8 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
weekh wrote:
While waiting for the G adapter, can the normal Nikon - Canon adapter be used on the 14-24mm lens and shoot at its widest aperture with manual focus?
Technically yes. Practically no.
It would mean jamming something inside the lens barrel to prop the mechanical aperture level in the lens to the open position, which could come loose and bang around inside the mirror box.
p.10 #9 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Your 18mm looks fine to me. The copy I tested against the Leica 19mm and Canon 16-35mm L Mark II (here) proved to be no better overall than the much improved Canon zoom. It was also made to look bad by the Leica.
However, in Mike's Olympus 18mm test (here) against the earlier Canon 16-35 L Mark I and the Zeiss 18mm, the Zuiko excelled against the less demanding competition. Though even here, bear in mind that Mike only published f8 and f11 tests (where Zuikos traditionally excel), and that the Zeiss was sharper in Zone A.
Without being on the spot or privy to every detail of your workflow – and without a benchmark lens for comparison – it's almost impossible to tell how your copy would compare to an optimal 14-24G, for instance. However, if anyone is prepared to loan me their nominal 18mm (complete with matched adaptor), I'd be happy to test it against something suitable and provide a link from each page to the photographer's site.
p.10 #10 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Hrannar (Hauxon) has posted many excellent images and says:
I've been using the 18/3.5 Zuiko with my 5D for uw landscape and am very pleased with it's performance. Haven't seen anyone testing it with the 1DsIII but expect it to deliver. Did I mention it's tiny?
I'm not sure anything I, or anything else anyone else has done, will change your unusually stubborn position. I not asking you to change your results from your test, I've just said I think it's only fair you do what you have done in the past for Canon lenses and note that based on other results you have seen you either have a poor copy or an adapter issue.
Also, why not get yourself a respected Kindai adapter to test something like the Zuiko 18/3.5. It would inspire more confidence in your ability to test the Zuiko lenses knowing your results are not influenced by a poor quality adapter.
Edited by pdmphoto on Jan 03, 2008 at 10:38 AM GMT
p.10 #11 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
hubsand wrote:
Your 18mm looks fine to me. The copy I tested against the Leica 19mm and Canon 16-35mm L Mark II (here) proved to be no better overall than the much improved Canon zoom. It was also made to look bad by the Leica.
However, in Mike's Olympus 18mm test (here) against the earlier Canon 16-35 L Mark I and the Zeiss 18mm, the Zuiko excelled against the less demanding competition. Though even here, bear in mind that Mike only published f8 and f11 tests (where Zuikos traditionally excel), and that the Zeiss was sharper in Zone A.
Yes, but your tests are showing poor results for zones B and C. And even stopped down ther corners are poor by comparison. And the Zuiko was no poor performer in the A zones in Mike's test. In fact, it showed consistently excellet performance across the frame. That what makes the Zuiko 18/3.5 so special. For landscape shots its nice not to see the usual decline in resolution as your eye moves to the edges of the frame. As you can see by my crops, I get excellent sharpness in the A zone, as well as B and C - my crops are showing all those zones.
Many FMer's (Guy, Mike Hatam, and others) tried the Leica 19mm and found it unsuitable for FF. They did find it good for the Leica DMR 1.3x crop because it takes out the poor corner performance.
Without being on the spot or privy to every detail of your workflow – and without a benchmark lens for comparison – it's almost impossible to tell how your copy would compare to an optimal 14-24G, for instance. However, if anyone is prepared to loan me their nominal 18mm (complete with matched adaptor), I'd be happy to test it against something suitable and provide a link from each page to the photographer's site.
What does my wortkflow have to do with it? I could say the same about everything that you publish. (Don't even open that can of worms. I have no commercial interests for what I publish, and I have consistently raved about the Zuiko 18/3.5 since getting it over a year ago). My crops speak for themselves. I am getting excellent center and corner performance. I've had any other wide anfgle lenses and no amount of post processing workflow can give me those results with another lens.
My Nikon 14-24/2.8 is an excellent copy. I'm going to leave my test result at 14mm f/2.8 here just a short while so FM'ers can see for themselves. As good as the Nikon is the Zuiko 18/3.5 is just as good or better than the Nikon at 18mm stopped down at some point around f/5.6. At f/11 the Zuiko looks even better as it seems to be less diffraction limited stopped down.
Nikon 14-24/2.8 on a Kodak SLR/n (my Zuiko pic was taken on a Kodak SLR/c with a Kindai adapter):
p.10 #12 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
It's all in the comparison. Your samples look very nice, but until you test a few alternatives using the same light, the same body, the same focal length, with the focal plane in exactly the same position, using the same post-production, we've got nothing substantial on which to base a comparative discussion in which we talk about the Leica 19 being better or worse.
But like I said, I'd love to put a 'best of breed' Zuiko 18mm up against the 14-24mm. If anyone can help me out with the loan of their 18mm, I'll do it . . . .
p.10 #13 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
pdmphoto wrote: Many FMer's (Guy, Mike Hatam, and others) tried the Leica 19mm and found it unsuitable for FF. They did find it good for the Leica DMR 1.3x crop because it takes out the poor corner performance.
Not sure about that. I always wondered about those tests because they didn't agree with my own experience. I'm using the 19 mm Leica both FF (1DsII) and cropped (DMR) and while it has some softness in the corners at the two widest apertures, at f5,6 and smaller it's good to excellent even on FF. What I did find at the time when I was testing the lens was that it overfocused somewhat at infinity using a Cameraquest adapter. This can be hard to see unless one makes an incremental focus test, and might perhaps have influenced the results.
I certainly don't find it "unsuitable" on FF and have posted a number of photographs taken with this combination.
p.10 #14 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
"Unsuitable" may have been to harsh, "not good enough for them" would be more accurate. Much of what was said was contained in the long deleted Leica DMR thread.
I agree 100% that it can be all about the adapter. Too many WA tests are done with, at best, a marginal adapter. Wide angle lenses require a top notch adapter for best performance. I know Guy and Mike H. often tried different adapters, so that may not have been issue. It could have been more of a adapter/camera issue - as the combination is what really matters. Seems the optimal adapter for a 1DsX may not be optimal for a 5D. Then, some WA lenses seem to be more sensitive than others.
Go ahead and post some great looking center and corner crops from your Leica 19mm. To be honest, I've spent way too much time over the last two years for these types of things (alternative lens test on FF bodies that show lens performance at center/edges) and I have never seen really good corners from a Leica 19mm on a FF Canon. It's one lens I considered early on, but couldn't find anyone who had anything great to show and tell about.
p.10 #15 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Paul, we're getting a little OT now and I have deleted most of those test files, but here is one from the focusing tests I made. The caveat is that this is originally a Jpeg file, so definition is somewhat compromised.
Here's the full image. Without exif data I can't be absolutely certain of the f-stop used, but from the context it seems to be f8.
p.10 #16 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
And here is the extreme lower right corner. Not fantastic I agree, but not bad either for a 19 mm at 100%. I will do a new test when the 1DsIII arrives, that'll be a challenge.
p.10 #17 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
pdmphoto wrote:
It could have been more of a adapter/camera issue - as the combination is what really matters. Seems the optimal adapter for a 1DsX may not be optimal for a 5D.
So, that would mean that even Canon's own lenses can have a problem mounted on different Canon cameras? What do you mean by the above? If the mount on a 1DsX is not exactly the same as the one on a 5D, that would be source of quite a bit of problems. Adapter X should mount lens Y in the same exact position on any Canon camera. What am i missing?
Thank you for explaining,
Daniele.
p.10 #18 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
I don't buy the 5D/1 Series adaptor discrepancy at all. Like anything, the positioning of the sensor is subject to some degree of manufacturing tolerance - hence the new adjustment facility. But that's an issue that varies from body to body, not model to model.
The golden rule is: the wider the lens, the more critical the adaptor.
These samples show that the Leica 19mm is capable of delivering acceptable (if not quite nominal) results at f8 in Zone C – on a 5D, at least. However, comparison with the CZ21 and Nikon 14-24mm shows that a lens this wide can do better: there is a nasty wrinkle in both resolving ability and distortion in Zone C that is exacerbated by the demands of 16MP and 22MP sensors. I'm confident that a properly adapted 14-24G is better than the Leica on balance.
p.10 #20 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
photoArne wrote:
And here is the extreme lower right corner. Not fantastic I agree, but not bad either for a 19 mm at 100%. I will do a new test when the 1DsIII arrives, that'll be a challenge.
I consider that bad for a 19mm. I get substantially better from my Canon 17-40mm f4L at 19mm (admittedly it's a great copy; Hubsand sold it to me from his personal reserve when he tried the Mamiya experiment; said it was the best of 6 copies he'd tested).
