philber wrote:
Lovely shot, Jeffrey! Positively lovely. Actually, the fact that 100% crops of the 16-35 look blurry probably doesn't matter a bit in real life, where nobody prints 100% crops of corners anyhow.
More important matters IMHO are rendition of colour and contrast, CA, distortion. All of which only if they are "bad" enough that they can be seen on a print.
+1 I'm trying to avoid fanboyism here but, everybody loves to jump on the 16-35L2 hate band wagon. I do agree that it's not perfect and the 21 distagon looks very impressive but, the fact is that a lot of fine art prints as well as a lot of other photography has been done successfully with the 16-35L. IMHO, if all you need is 21mm and MF works for you, then look no further than the Distagon. However, 16-35L2 adds a lot of versatility and AF for about the same price and most of the differences aren't noticeable in print.
For landscape, I shoot the 16-35 between f/11 and f/16. It's probably my most used lens and I've been happy with large prints made from it. The crops I posted were the extreme corners. It's very sharp in the center and pretty good on the edges. By f/11 even the corners are at least decent. I actually think the 16-35 might be sharper in the center at some apertures.
I was expecting the Zeiss to be noticeably better, which I think it is (especially on the edges and in the corners)....doesn't mean I'm going to kick the 16-35 out of my bag though.
Tim, I agree with all that you said. My own portfolio (and website) is loaded with successful images made with the 16-35 both versions.
Doesn't everyone sharpen for print? Even with the Zeiss, but maybe less required. All lenses benefit from that.
Good to see that this thread has opened up to identifying the real world usage and acceptable results, and backed off the magnifying glass a bit.
By the way, I shoot 4x5 often, and have made my finest images with that, which blows away even my high end digital camera/lens. But, they are getting closer all the time!
dancam wrote:
most of the differences aren't noticeable in print.
Indeed I tried to highlight that differences that only show up on 100% crop don't matter to me that much, just as differences that only affect a very small percentage of shots don't either. But it would be wrong to infer from that except for this I hold the 16-35 to be equivalent in IQ to the Zeiss. IMHO the Zeiss offers superior rendition of colour and contrast, a great 3D effect, and almost complete absence of CA, which is hardly the case of the 16-35. I too would have liked to enjoy the benefits of a zoom, so I tried it and passed. That was for a reason. The one I tried exhbited CA that I couldn't live with, which was plainly visible on the camera LCD and on an A4 print. YMMV.
Thanks Phil and everyone else. I've decided to get the 21mm
The 16-35mm does perform terribly in the corners, but I've found that one doesn't pay attention to it on a large print. Mostly when pixel peeping. It is still a problem and the reason why I'm getting the zeiss. I can't wait for the UPS man to ring my doorbell with a plethora of boxes from BH
Hougaard Malan wrote:
Thanks Phil and everyone else. I've decided to get the 21mm
The 16-35mm does perform terribly in the corners, but I've found that one doesn't pay attention to it on a large print. Mostly when pixel peeping. It is still a problem and the reason why I'm getting the zeiss. I can't wait for the UPS man to ring my doorbell with a plethora of boxes from BH
Enjoy your new lens, and we'll be expecting to see some shots
philber wrote:
Hougaard, I don't understand. The Zeiss comes in only one box....
The 21mm yes, but the 50mm in another, the 100mm in another, some kirk goodies, lee goodies, canon goodies, the list goes on The South African Rand has been doing too well recently for me to withdraw my stock earnings, so I've got some U.S 'darra' to spend on equipment
I use DxO which has a camera/lens profile for the 5D and the 16-35, it removes the CA automatically. It's pretty amazing.
philber wrote:
Indeed I tried to highlight that differences that only show up on 100% crop don't matter to me that much, just as differences that only affect a very small percentage of shots don't either. But it would be wrong to infer from that except for this I hold the 16-35 to be equivalent in IQ to the Zeiss. IMHO the Zeiss offers superior rendition of colour and contrast, a great 3D effect, and almost complete absence of CA, which is hardly the case of the 16-35. I too would have liked to enjoy the benefits of a zoom, so I tried it and passed. That was for a reason. The one I tried exhbited CA that I couldn't live with, which was plainly visible on the camera LCD and on an A4 print. YMMV....Show more →
tsdevine wrote:
I use DxO which has a camera/lens profile for the 5D and the 16-35, it removes the CA automatically. It's pretty amazing.
Call me a dinosaur, but I prefer to have a system that does not generate aberrations that need electronic removal later. For this reason, I would prefer that the Zeiss not exhibit its "mustache" distortion ,even though it can be perfectly removed as well....
I want the perfect lens too. Short of that some automation is nice. I really hope that DxO comes up with a profile for the Zeiss. Then I get the automatic removal of distortion in the tool I use for RAW conversion.
Try using your feet when you are at the edge of a lake, or on the side of a mountain. Also, moving forward or backward with a fixed focal length is not the same as changing the focal length; the perspective changes.
belsha wrote:
The point is that the Nikkor 14-24 has been showed to be impeccable, nearly on par with the Distagon, at all f-stops and focal lengths, in the center as on the edges. The Canon 16-35 MkII performance, if this test is true, is just TERRIBLE in the corners. No point whatever to buy a 1Ds MKII or 5DMkII to use it with a lens that bad, all those pixels are clearly wasted.
I pesonnally use a Zuiko 21 3.5. It costs 200$ and fits into my shirt pocket and is better than the Canon (at least on 5D). For me no need to zoom for ultrawide, 21mm is all I need....Show more →
The 14-24 range is quite different to 16-35. Comparing the 2 is unfair. Nikon could not replicate the performance of their 14-24 with their new 16-35.
SKumar25 wrote:
Nikon could not replicate the performance of their 14-24 with their new 16-35.
Which once again proves that the optical design of a lens is unique. Otherwise every lens would have the magnificent characteristics of the Distagon 21mm. Not even Zeiss is close, neither at 18 nor 25mm.
Jeffrey,
I'm so jealous!! I need to go back to Zion asap now!!
I have not decided if I'm going to get the new 24ts-e II or the 21ze. (I sold my 16-35mm and didn't want to go to the 16-35II route)
I can totally understand the habit of stepping down to f/16 or f/22. After processing and printing it small (13x19") it should be fine. However, when going bigger, we will see a noticeable difference in sharpness because of the loss in resolution.
Optimally, we should be shooting at f/5.6 with these lenses for maximum resolution but of course that would not work for what we want to achieve (maximum dof). That is why I thought about the TS-E on full frame. I'm going to see if if it makes sense to shoot at optimal f/stops and while maintaining the entire field sharp using tilt.
I had done some experiments with that with my ex-24ts-e but that was on the D30!!! and at that time, I could not get the wide angle I wanted. Now on the 5DII, I'm willing to go 24mm and try the TS-E again!!
I will probably get both and write a little comparison review with the pros and cons of both lenses in the field.
My only issue with the 24mm TS-E II. It's may not wide enough in some occasions.
However, If I shoot 3 frames in portrait orientation, shifting 12mm in each direction, I would get a super high resolution image at ~18mm. (If my calculation is correct). Along with that I will probably be able to shoot at f/5.6 using tilt and get even more resolution for my prints. If everything works, I would print at 20x30in using the 21ze image and this 18mm(shifted) 24ts-e image for comparison. Should be fun!
Take care,
Fred
Sorry to tell you this, but I have three Zeiss ZE primes in my bag now, 21, 35 and 85. You are right about the sweet spot of a lens, but I think it goes higher than f5.6. With the 1DsIII and good post skills, I have very sharp images at f16, and sometimes beyond. I owned the 24 t/s for a while, but it was before I really knew how to use it, and I was heading to a 4x5 which I still use a lot. Lens quality is so good these days that I push the f stops a bit further than 8-10 years ago.
We all look forward to your decision, and the results of your experiments.
