If movement is the subject matter and you want to do something artistic like ptys' shot, then IS would be fine. However, if you need to identify the people then it is not. Imagine wedding shots like this, all shot at 1/8 sec! Grandma would not like that ;-)
PetKal wrote:
Good point. Many of us might become better photographers if we could only free ourselves of myth, doctrine, old rules and cliches.
>In the 16-9 tests I don't like the color of the wall...
(Edited for disambiguation:)
I am at a loss to understand how someone can look at the 16-9.net comparison and favour the Canon 14Lmk2 over the 14-24. All the crops seem to show that the Nikon spanks the Canon. The only test in which the Canon was superior, in my view, was the distortion test, in which the Canon was beautifully rectilinear and the Nikon was seriously bulgy. But we have distortion correction in DPP and other software now, so why did Canon sacrifice design currency for that, when it could have made a much sharper lens at the cost of more distortion?
brainiac wrote:
so why did Canon sacrifice design currency for that, when it could have made a much sharper lens at the cost of more distortion?
Brainiac....let me venture a guess: either you do not own a 24L, or the one you use is knackered.
Be that as it may, we seem to be but a short step from starting to slam a lens (viz. 24L II) that very few have had in their hands as of now, let alone have tested it, all based on a report which says that a Nikon zoom is sharper than 14L.
Damn, that's rich, even without considering that Hubsand might have had a dudley 14L specimen. Now then, if so, Canon indeed deserves slamming for that, as we are dutifully doing it anyway on a daily basis here.
Sean Mills wrote:
It suuuuure does. I would put it head to head against the 14-24 nikor any day... AT 14mm obviously. Yes, it can be too wide sometimes. Hence the 24mm or Zeiss 21mm would make excellent companions.
Well don't worry I'm going to get it anyway, good lord I couldn't imagine adding a contraption like the poor guy did with those filters and such....holy cow that is a production and 1/2 ....
I plan to get the lens for it's fast 1.4 aperature. Of course, for landscapes at high aperature it should perform nicely. Then again, with all this talk of this or that lens slapping or slamming the IQ of another, may I include the Zeiss Distagon 21, which will easily beat the Canon 14L II and the Nikon 14-24 zoom, both excellent lenses. That's really the lens I want for landscape and my new 5Dmk2.
Maggot wrote:
I plan to get the lens for it's fast 1.4 aperature. Of course, for landscapes at high aperature it should perform nicely. Then again, with all this talk of this or that lens slapping or slamming the IQ of another, may I include the Zeiss Distagon 21, which will easily beat the Canon 14L II and the Nikon 14-24 zoom, both excellent lenses. That's really the lens I want for landscape and my new 5Dmk2.
PetKal wrote:
Damn, that's rich, even without considering that Hubsand might have had a dudley 14L specimen. Now then, if so, Canon indeed deserves slamming for that, as we are dutifully doing it anyway on a daily basis here.
Indeed, my 14II isn't nearly as bad as that. Is it better than the nikkor? I dont know or care, but not all 14s are as crappy as that one. Oh and 14 has better colors than 24L or 35L.
I've got the Mk 1 version, and have been pleased with it. Unfortunately on my 40D I've been unable to assess the extreme corners of the frame with this lens, but on the crop (with its relatively high pixel count) this is an excellent low light lens, here's one at f1.4:
Stopped down to f8 the lens is as sharp as anything else I've seen on digital. I am intrigued to see what exactly Canon have improved on the Mk2! Perhaps its got better corners at wider apertures? But I am speculating now.
PetKal wrote:
Brainiac....let me venture a guess: either you do not own a 24L, or the one you use is knackered.
Be that as it may, we seem to be but a short step from starting to slam a lens (viz. 24L II) that very few have had in their hands as of now, let alone have tested it, all based on a report which says that a Nikon zoom is sharper than 14L.
Damn, that's rich, even without considering that Hubsand might have had a dudley 14L specimen. Now then, if so, Canon indeed deserves slamming for that, as we are dutifully doing it anyway on a daily basis here. ...Show more →
Sorry - I didn't make it clear that I was talking about the 14L II, not the 24. The 14L II hubsand used for the test was brand new and performed extremely well. All other examples of the 14L2 that I have seen also show that it has muddy corners, in exactly the way that hubsand's test shows. The lens was not anomalous. Don't get me wrong: it's a wonderful lens. It's just that the Nikon 14-24, miraculously, is significantly better in the corners, and corners matter in a lens like this, else you would use a 21mm. Nobody is 'slamming' the lens. hubsand's crops are plain to see. My observation is that the 14mk2 is very good, but might have been much better, perhaps even as sharp as the 14-24, if Canon had given up the design goal of zero distortion, since distortion can be fixed in post.
BTW, as regards your comment that my opinion was 'based on a report', I should tell you that I was with hubsand that day when he did his test, and so were two other FM'ers. Hubsand is a fastidious tester who has done this community of serious photographers a great service over the years by kindly sharing his findings. I'm more inclined to trust hubsand's findings than anyone else's.
Shuko wrote:
Indeed, my 14II isn't nearly as bad as that. Is it better than the nikkor? I dont know or care, but not all 14s are as crappy as that one. Oh and 14 has better colors than 24L or 35L.
I am glad for you that your lens is much better than the one that hubsand tested, but please forgive my curiosity, and show us high contrast subject material in the extreme corners on a 1Ds3 or 5D2. Hubsand has generously shown his crops. If you want to claim his lens was anomalous, then show us.
OK, Brainiac, I must have misunderstood your missive there. Too many different and non-EF lenses are being discussed, so it gets confusing at times.
I have no reason to distrust Hubsand's test results. However, having some first hand knowledge of Canon's record with lens copy variations, I have suggested a possibility that Hubsand's 14L copy might have not been a representative, "design conformant" one.
It kicks my butt big time that I have no personal experience with the lens because I don't really need it, and don't plan to spend $2k in order to understand its performance.
However, the 24L is a different story. Had two copies over the past few years and both were absolutely and equally delightful. If Canon can improve on that performance in a meaningful way, my hat off to them.
PetKal wrote:
OK, Brainiac, I must have misunderstood your missive there.
That's my fault - I was talking about an off-topic lens which had come up in the previous messages and I omitted to mention it by name.
>I have no reason to distrust Hubsand's test results. However, having some first hand knowledge of Canon's record with lens copy variations, I have suggested a possibility that Hubsand's 14L copy might have not been a representative, "design conformant" one.
I don't think it makes sense to presume variance in the 14Lmk2. Canon has clearly taken heed of the (hubsand's?) criticisms and tightened things up in the last year or two. Other corner crops from other copies of the 14Lmk2 have been posted on this forum and they seem to match hubsand's findings very well. I'll let you look up the thread.
>However, the 24L is a different story. Had two copies over the past few years and both were absolutely and equally delightful. If Canon can improve on that performance in a meaningful way, my hat off to them.
...and hubsand's huge 24mm knockout competition was won by... his 24L. It's already the best, and they just made it even better. Thank you Canon.
I got my 24 II yesterday and was able to take a few shots this morning. I'm no lens tester and made no effort to be exacting, just squeezed off the same shot at 3 locations with the 24 Mk I and 24 Mk II on a 1DsIII. My quick impression is the II is noticeably a bit sharper wide open in the center and sides, although still a soft in the corners. Noticeably better lens to me, but YMMV, of course.
Anyway, I posted three comparison shots (100% jpgs, all sharpened 90%/1.0 in PS) HERE . Feel free to download and pixel peep.
RCicala wrote:
I got my 24 II yesterday and was able to take a few shots this morning. I'm no lens tester and made no effort to be exacting, just squeezed off the same shot at 3 locations with the 24 Mk I and 24 Mk II on a 1DsIII. My quick impression is the II is noticeably a bit sharper wide open in the center and sides, although still a soft in the corners. Noticeably better lens to me, but YMMV, of course.
Anyway, I posted three comparison shots (100% jpgs, all sharpened 90%/1.0 in PS) HERE . Feel free to download and pixel peep. ...Show more →
RCicala wrote:
I got my 24 II yesterday and was able to take a few shots this morning. I'm no lens tester and made no effort to be exacting, just squeezed off the same shot at 3 locations with the 24 Mk I and 24 Mk II on a 1DsIII. My quick impression is the II is noticeably a bit sharper wide open in the center and sides, although still a soft in the corners. Noticeably better lens to me, but YMMV, of course.
Anyway, I posted three comparison shots (100% jpgs, all sharpened 90%/1.0 in PS) HERE . Feel free to download and pixel peep. ...Show more →
Good show, Roger. I am looking at the bookshelves shots......it's a bit of a mixed bag which could also be an artifact of focus differences, however, overall the image designated as "24L" looks sharper to my eye than the one designated "24 II".
PetKal wrote:
Good show, Roger. I am looking at the bookshelves shots......it's a bit of a mixed bag which could also be an artifact of focus differences, however, overall the image designated as "24L" looks sharper to my eye than the one designated "24 II".
I agree - although looking at the titles in the books I think (despite the reasonable shutter times) I may have a bit of motion blur in that shot. Out of the frame, pawing my left shoulder was a 40 pound dog who really thought tug-or-war would be more fun than photography.
brainiac wrote:
That's my fault - I was talking about an off-topic lens which had come up in the previous messages and I omitted to mention it by name.
I don't think it makes sense to presume variance in the 14Lmk2. Canon has clearly taken heed of the (hubsand's?) criticisms and tightened things up in the last year or two. Other corner crops from other copies of the 14Lmk2 have been posted on this forum and they seem to match hubsand's findings very well. I'll let you look up the thread.
...and hubsand's huge 24mm knockout competition was won by... his 24L. It's already the best, and they just made it even better. Thank you Canon....Show more →
the MTF for it on canon's site do look a lot better than for version 1 (and comapred to 24mm setting of 24-70L, 24-105L) and better than the 24mm f2.8 too so it may be impressive. looking at that canon japan site the diagram shows that it uses a whole heck of a lot more exotic glass than version 1 did.
PetKal wrote:
Good show, Roger. I am looking at the bookshelves shots......it's a bit of a mixed bag which could also be an artifact of focus differences, however, overall the image designated as "24L" looks sharper to my eye than the one designated "24 II".
even the SLIGHTEST difference in focusing can make a huge difference
anyway, i'd be interested in some more landscape type f-stops, like f/6.3-f/10
