Awesome from the 24 TS-E II, and if you want a superb UWA zoom, the Nikon is your answer. I've seen better from the Nikon as in these tests on a 1Ds III. Sharp corners at f/2.8!
Interesting tests and I would agree your 24-70 is not right.
The 24-70 is a mixed performer, I am not really happy with mine, but yours appears to be softer than my copy. I would expect better results at f4, f5.6 but it won't match the other two.
Very interesting. I've similarly found the 17 TS-E to be rather impressive IQ wise. I'd say that between the 17 TS-E, the 24 TS-E II and the 24 f/1.4 II Canon some decent UWA choices for getting high IQ on the high MP bodies.
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 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.
i'm not the tiniest bit surprised the 24-70 would look like that in the corners, I am a little surprised it would be like that in the center though
i have found that sharpness tests are insanely, ridiculously sensitive to focusing variation and even using 10x zoom LV I need to give it at least 3 separate goes to really start feeling good about the fairness of a comparison.
I was debating whether to get a 14-24/16-9 adaptor, 21 distagon, 24TSE II or a 24/1.4 II stopped down.
The answer is now the 24TSE II. Saving up for one right now.
Don't rule out the 24L II either, although not reflected in the tests conducted by the OP.
It is sharp as heck all the way from 1.4 to stopped down....
Really, the only reason i'd want a 14-24, is for the wider focal lengths and the 9-nine bladed aperture which produces some magnificent 18 sided flare (i.e. good) but I have personally found that I hardly used the 14mm range when I owned the 14-24, always had it on 24mm anyways....
ILOVECANONL wrote:
epuja, stop. i had made my decision. it's the 24TSE II. stop making me think otherwise argh
Your pic is epic though. It's not full resolution but wow.. The picture must of had a bit of USM and smart resize/bicubic sharper?
Thanks ILOVECANONL - yes -- i used photoshop unsharp mask in this picture... but regardless, the 24L II is SHARP - and other than being sharp has other very desirable characteristics such as very sharp at f/1.4, autofocus, awesome colors, controlled CA, etc etc etc..
I only wish it had 9 bladed aperture...but then Canon seems to have a thing with 8 bladed....
The 24L II is sharp wide open, I believe you. I was actually going to get it when it was released, until I saw the digital pictures first review of it (he had his noise reduction set automatically so his first 100% crops were soft). That made me get the 35L instead and I regret it because I needed the wider angle.
As for the 24L II, I would imagine it to be just as sharp as the 35L wide open but with less CA. Still deciding on the 24LII with AF or 24TSEII.
As I recall, 24mm is the weak end of the Nikon zoom, so not too shabby, and by the time you get to landscape apertures, there's not a tremendous difference, even at 24mm. The 24 is definitely sharper, however, and it has flexibility that the 14-24 does not, namely tilt and shift. Good to see Canon giving Nikon a run for their money on the wide end of lenses in general.
erichard wrote:
As I recall, 24mm is the weak end of the Nikon zoom, so not too shabby, and by the time you get to landscape apertures, there's not a tremendous difference, even at 24mm. The 24 is definitely sharper, however, and it has flexibility that the 14-24 does not, namely tilt and shift. Good to see Canon giving Nikon a run for their money on the wide end of lenses in general.
Yes - u are correct, 24mm is the 'weak' end of the Nikon zoom - Unfortunately it was the 24mm end that I used 90% of the time
The Nikon zoom is an amazing lens. My only complaints with it are the size...which kept me from using it as much as I'd like to.
Since we are already talking about the Nikon 14-24, I suspect that at least for me, it may find itself on the Buy & Sell soon. The combination of 17 TS-E and 24 f/1.4 II seem to cover my ultra wide angle needs really well (though only time will tell for sure). The 14-24 will still be useful when I need AF in the full range, but I'm finding that its rare.
thedigitalbean wrote:
Since we are already talking about the Nikon 14-24, I suspect that at least for me, it may find itself on the Buy & Sell soon. The combination of 17 TS-E and 24 f/1.4 II seem to cover my ultra wide angle needs really well (though only time will tell for sure). The 14-24 will still be useful when I need AF in the full range, but I'm finding that its rare.
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).
Agreed, that 24-70 doesn't look all that good. While mine isn't perfect at f/2.8 & 24 MM, it is closer at f/2.8 to the performance of the OP's 24-70 at f/5.6.
That 24/TSE II looks excellent. Better than the original 24/TSE.
The Nikon 14-24 performs very well also. Pretty impressive.
The 24TSE is looking amazingly sharp! Just called my store to check my place in the Que and they had some cancellations and I'm getting the first one they will receive
What I find interesting is that it holds up so well at f22. I am not at all surprised at the poor performance of the 24-70, I had one briefly which was about like this, traded it for a 24-105 which was just as bad, and later sold it. The 17-40 also looks like this, but we are told that corner sharpness is not important, or shown images with no corner detail, etc etc.
My big problem is between this and the 24f1.4 mk2. Zooms need not apply.
Tom_W wrote:
Agreed, that 24-70 doesn't look all that good. While mine isn't perfect at f/2.8 & 24 MM, it is closer at f/2.8 to the performance of the OP's 24-70 at f/5.6.
Well, I just did some test shots with my 24-70 on the 5D II. It's not quite as good as I thought - the 5D2 exploits the corners a bit more than my 5D does. It's performance appears to be better than that of the OP, but my f/2.8 appears to be more like his f/4 shots, not his 5.6.
I've been a strong defender of this lens, but it appears to be no match for the fine new 24/TSE II nor for the 14-24 Nikon.
