Today I compared 3 lenses at 24mm. This was just a test of the sharpness of the lenses. Other aspects like CA, vignetting, contrast, colors, flare etc. were not tested. The aim of this test was to check, whether my new 24 TSE II lens has any faults and to help me to decide whether I should keep my 24-70L or sell it.
The test-object was the side-wall of my house. The test was done with a Canon 5D II on a Gitzo series 5 tripod with a burzsynki head, mirror lock-up and manual focus with 10x live view on the wall at the center of the image. The 24TSE was not shifted or tilted. All pictures were shot in raw at ISO 100, converted with LR with the default sharping parameters (25, 1.0, 25) and then exported to jpg with 100% quality.
The following 3 lenses were tested at 2.8 (3.5), 4.0, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22:
1. Canon 2.8/24-70 L @24mm
2. Canon 3.5/24mm TSE II
3. Nikon 2.8/14-24 (adapted with 16-9-adapter to Canon)
Pictures of the other apertures will follow. By the way the 24-70L was tested a few weeks ago at Canon and according to Canon the sharpness is within spec. Draw your own conclusions, but I am happy with my new TSE and the 14-24 and I will probably sell my 24-70.
I know people will say "But it doesn't zoom!" and they're right -- they should buy a zoom -- but that's simply a phenomenal performance by the TS-E 24 II.
Can't wait to get one.
Thanks very much for the tests; I know they're a pain to do!
Thanks for doing this. The TSE-E 24 II looks great.
I would like to see a similar test with the TSE-E 24 II matched against the TSE-E 24 I. I found the fist version a little soft, especially in the corners. I own the 45 TS-E and really like that lens though.
epuja wrote:
so whats the conclusion? the 24TSE is sharper than both others?
I wonder how the 24L II (or I) compares in this mix.
Thanks for the comparison!
Yes, the conclusion is, that the 24TSE is the sharpest of the three, but the 14-24 is yery close.
I don't have any 1.4/24mm. Since I mostly do landscapes I don't really need an aperture of 1.4.
Your 24-70L is clearly defective, or misfocused in these tests. My old 24-70L was far sharper at f/2.8, and yours isn't sharp by f/5.6 in the posted pictures. The TS looks like a winner (and of course the 14-24 is no slouch).
EDIT: Even this doesn't look as good as my copy did, but still obviously better than the photos posted in the test here: http://tinyurl.com/madlso
jvarszegi wrote:
Your 24-70L is clearly defective, or misfocused in these tests. My old 24-70L was far sharper at f/2.8, and yours isn't sharp by f/5.6 in the posted pictures. The TS looks like a winner (and of course the 14-24 is no slouch).
EDIT: Even this doesn't look as good as my copy did, but still obviously better than the photos posted in the test here: http://tinyurl.com/madlso
A missfocus is highly unlikely with liveview at 10x magnification. It could be that the sensor-plane was not exact parallel to the wall. But if this was the case then each of the three lenses should suffer under this uncontrolled parameter in the same way, because the focus-point was the same for each lense.
It could be that my 24-70 is defective, but this is in my mind also pretty unlikely. I tested my 24-70 against another 24-70 from a friend. His lens had better contrast, but the sharpness was nearly the same. I also tested my 24-70 against my 16-35 (Mark I). My 24-70 was better at all apertures at the whole range 24-35 (after this test I sold my 16-35). And, as I allready wrote, Canon has tested this lens a few weeks ago and I have a writen statement from Canon, that the sharpness of this lens was tested is within spec.
Thank you for taking you time with these tests. While I do think the 24-70L has better potential, that 24TSEII is remarkable. Thanks again for sharing.
Bobu wrote:
A missfocus is highly unlikely with liveview at 10x magnification. It could be that the sensor-plane was not exact parallel to the wall. But if this was the case then each of the three lenses should suffer under this uncontrolled parameter in the same way, because the focus-point was the same for each lense.
It could be that my 24-70 is defective, but this is in my mind also pretty unlikely.
I take your word for it that the shots were focused correctly. Your copy is obviously worse, then, than the copy at the-digital-picture. But in any event thanks for posting this test... I want a 24 TSE II!
Nice job on the test - and the 24TSE looks very nice. But... I do think your copy of the 24-70 stinks! Did you calibrate it with your camera at Cannon?
It would be nice to see real photos with your new lens too - I'm sure they are very nice as well.
ESC in KC wrote:
Nice job on the test - and the 24TSE looks very nice. But... I do think your copy of the 24-70 stinks! Did you calibrate it with your camera at Cannon?
It would be nice to see real photos with your new lens too - I'm sure they are very nice as well.
No, I did not calibrate the lens together with the camera, but I think this is only necessary with autofocus-problems (which is here not relevant because of the manual focus with live view).
I just returned from a two week landscape-shooting in Korsika. My plan was to take the 24 TSE with me, but it arrived a few days to late. My next opportunity for taking some real landscape photos with the 24TSE will be in august in Brittany.
