bobbytan wrote:
Point taken. I am not into Nikon lenses either. It was a toss-up for me between the 24L II and the ZE 21, but seeing how I love to shoot landscapes, the ZE 21 is now (for me) a mile ahead of the 24 II. The ZE promises to be even better than the old Contax-mount 21 Distagon.
The ZE promises to be better if it doesn't have the QA issues like the ZE 85 1.4 you mean. =P
I do landscapes too and it's all about the sweet spot. If a 2.8 lens is sharper at 2.8 than the 1.4 is at it's sweet spot (F5.6, 8, etc), then I'll grab a 2.8 and have no regrets. I won't shoot dungeons with it, and if I ever did I'll grab a 35L. If you absolutely need the 24mm focal length as well as the 1.4, then get the 24L I or II. Both will serve you nicely.
I really wouldn't put any stock at all in The Digital Picture test results. A few of my L primes (particularly the 50L) are blistering sharp at medium to long distances, but fall apart close up. I don't see how they could have shot those charts except close-in. I want to see Hubsand test the lens, for instance.
bmstudios wrote:
Uh oh......the mud is really starting fly about these 2 lenses now...
Well maybe the 3 lenses
Dood....losing count here perchance ?
Here is my take on it: 24L I, 24L II, 21mm Distant n' gone, 14-24mm f/2.8, 14L II........that's five lenses, dood.
alundeb wrote:
Tthis is the softest ISO crop I have seen from any L prime at F8, or any canon prime at all at that aperture. I don't trust this test.
This is a Canon wide angle lens (warning lights should be going off). If it were a big white lens at f8, I would agree something is odd, but there is precedent here. The Digital Picture uses live-view to focus, so unless Canon is shipping duds of their new optic already (and in which case, I certainly won't be understanding), there is very little wiggle room here.
With this new information I am all but sold on the Mark I given its price point... just wish I could see some real world side-by-side with crops.
EDIT: In fact, looking at the MTFs posted at the beginning of this thread, the results make more sense. At medium distances from the center the mark 2 looks sharper (comparing the two at f1.4). The center is where it loses (inexplicably), and the edges are more of a tossup. Not being a landscape photographer (prefer the f1.4 for indoor use), and considering how both the 24L and 35L are $500 cheaper than in Japan (yen power these days), before Canon resets the price with "mark 2s" of all of their L primes, I think this is the opening I have been waiting for.
I am (or at least was) going to buy a 24/1.4. However, I got to try a 24L mkI and compared it to my 24/2.8 and was surprised to see that the 24/2.8 was clearly sharper across the frame even when both were at f/2.8.
Can this be normal? Do I have a super 24/2.8 (it IS really good), or was the 24L a bad copy? Has anyone else tried both? What were your findings?
PetKal wrote:
Dood....losing count here perchance ?
Here is my take on it: 24L I, 24L II, 21mm Distant n' gone, 14-24mm f/2.8, 14L II........that's five lenses, dood.
, is that what it's up to
For me I'm just going to enjoy my 24L II and anticipate my purchase of the 14L II
18 pages later... I didn't even realize the lens was out and in the hands of FM'rs! Please, post some pictures! (And not parking lots or lens boxes, or bath time... Lets see some photos :-)
bobbytan wrote:
Perfection? If the 24L Mk I is perfection, how would you describe the Nikon 14-24 lens? Here's a comparison of the resolution figures at 14mm from PhotoZone. See the difference .... especially at the corners?
You have to keep in mind that these are also using different cameras. Things like the strength of the AA filter comes into play.
Jim
Roy Pertchik wrote:
18 pages later... I didn't even realize the lens was out and in the hands of FM'rs! Please, post some pictures! (And not parking lots or lens boxes, or bath time... Lets see some photos :-)
Darn, and I had some nice tub shots for ya Roy.....
, is that what it's up to 