ChrisDM wrote: mfoto wroteNice series. Thanks for posting.
The 17 TSE does look impressive but the 21 ZE doesn't look bad either at $1000 less. The real question for me however is; How would my 16-35 2.8L Mark 1 do in this group. Probably not that bad at f/11.As the examples in the OPs post clearly demonstrate, when stopped down (where these lenses are typically shot at for this type of work), the IQ differences are left for the gearheads to irrelevantly bicker over. However where the real differences lie are in other traits. For example the original 16-35 shows pretty bad barrel distortion. I shoot most of my architecture with my 24L TSE or 17-40 because of this. But after the distortion corrections are made, it would be nearly impossible to tell which lens took which photo, just like the examples above. Now let the irrelevant bickering continue!
Thanks Chris. I just decided to correct a few 16-35 shots to see what they would like like and then decided to post them here. Please, this in no way is meant to bash Boris' great shots and study but just to see what four wide shots would look like after some photoshop corrections. First three shots are with the 5D and the last with the 5D II.
That last pic is really bending my head....lol!
I find my 16-35IIL suffers from heavy CA when I PS it. Out of the can it seem to have a little but not too much.But once I tweek and tweeze the colours, sharpen and persoective shift...it all goes wrong in the CA area. Sure I can re-PS with my anti CA actions...but this all takes time and i'd prefer not to have to.
Great that someone has got this bunch of lenses together to show 100% samples. Outstanding points seem to be:
a) How great the Zeiss 21mm is in terms of resolution, contrast, colour and CA control
b) How the new 24TSE matches it all the way, and/or
c) How everything looks pretty similar at f11
and d) How great a performer the Nikon is considering how hugely it is handicapped by the wider framing: the altar scene is rendered at 14mm by 10% fewer pixels than the 17mm TSE, 35% fewer pixels than the Zeiss 21mm, and almost 60% fewer pixels than the 24mm.
Personnally, I have never seen lenses that look different at wider apertures simply converge and look the same at f:11. It might affect some criteria, like sharpness/softness, but I can't see how it would affect matters like colour rendering. Those are just examples, and I would gladly stand corrected if I am wrong. Maybe I can even save myself from buying more expensive glass...
If anybody wants to see any other 100% crops (corners?) of these scenes, just tell me. But keep in mind I have only f/11 shots (for the 21ZE f/11 and f/5.6).
Regarding CA: In my opinion the 14-24mm isn't to bad, I see more CA in the 17mm TSE. Can anybody explain what we see in the CA crop of the 24 TSE? On the right side of the window you see a red line, on the left side blue/green lines. And these lines are not besides the dark lines of the window but on them. Not typical for CA. Is this something different?
@hubsand: I also tested your new V2 adapter and it worked great, handling is much improved compared to the old one.
The magenta of LCA spreads on the wall, I suspect we see some CA and some flare at work here. The 24TSE is different, there is a little CA, almost no LCA and no flare(IMHO). Considering the size of the images we look at, there is no reason to bother, they are all outstanding
Bobu wrote:
If anybody wants to see any other 100% crops (corners?) of these scenes, just tell me. But keep in mind I have only f/11 shots (for the 21ZE f/11 and f/5.6).
Regarding CA: In my opinion the 14-24mm isn't to bad, I see more CA in the 17mm TSE. Can anybody explain what we see in the CA crop of the 24 TSE? On the right side of the window you see a red line, on the left side blue/green lines. And these lines are not besides the dark lines of the window but on them. Not typical for CA. Is this something different?
@hubsand: I also tested your new V2 adapter and it worked great, handling is much improved compared to the old one.
Very nice shots, everyone. Thanks all for posting! This thread contains lots of very nice pictures, and interesting elements regarding to choice of WA lenses. Since I was away when the thread was started, it took me some time to find it, but I am glad I eventually found it. I am very impressed by the performance of these new TSE... even if I know they are not in my budget, and would not fit in my bag.
Yes! it really is at the edges that you notice ultimate IQ. I would, in this case, rather evaluate the CA after correction in PS. And, of course, color cast can by adjusted to most any values you want.
Yakim Peled wrote: Bobu wroteAll picture weres taken at f/11 [...] Regarding the quality there is not much difference between the 14-24mm, the 17mm TSE, the 21mm ZE and the 24mm TSE II in this situationWell, I can't say I'm surprised.
Not surprising to me either. I would expect stopped down, center sharpness of a group of expensive, high quality lenses to be fairly good and consistent across all the lenses. This test tells me nothing that shouldn't be expected.
What is going to differentiate the performance of these lenses is corner sharpness, sharpness wide open, and the many other parameters of performance.