(change the extentions to .jpg and put them in a new browser, they're full size images and not mine)
get them both open in new windows/tabs in a browser so you can flip back and forth. The 16-35VR has MUCH worse barrel distortion (look at the fridge and the wall edge back left). It also vignettes worse but that doesn't bother me.
worse, much worse, but that was my one issue with the 14-24mm as it was, and something I was hoping would be improved with this new lens. I'll run it through some paces tonight and see what I can get, but I have a feeling the 16-35VR isn't going to be the solution I was hoping for....
The barrel distortion does not bother me, and what I have seen so far is that this lens is very sharp, cheaper than the 14-24, smaller and it could take a filter...I'm getting one..!
OK, well it seems to have generated discussion, so I thought I'd do a quick comparison of the barrel distortion of the the three better wide zooms at 17mm.
14-24 smokes the others which seem very very close. Not sure if the difference in the 16-35 and 17-35 are just a nudge off in FL or something else? The 16-35 is blue compared to the others?
RCicala wrote:
OK, well it seems to have generated discussion, so I thought I'd do a quick comparison of the barrel distortion of the the three better wide zooms at 17mm.
Nicely Executed test and the results speak for themselves. What is hilarious is that people want it all and do not want to pay for it. The lens performs very well considering its cost. if you want *better* then just pay for it
jacobsen1 wrote:
14-24 smokes the others which seem very very close. Not sure if the difference in the 16-35 and 17-35 are just a nudge off in FL or something else? The 16-35 is blue compared to the others?
Right, but 16/17mm is not at the widest end of the zoom. All this is irrelevant and there is way more armchair shooting going on here than actually picture taking.
jacobsen1 wrote:
14-24 smokes the others which seem very very close. Not sure if the difference in the 16-35 and 17-35 are just a nudge off in FL or something else? The 16-35 is blue compared to the others?
I think the nudge off in FL is correct: we set them by the 17mm mark on the dial, so not totally accurate. I think the color difference (these are just slam dunk jpgs) probably had to do with change in sunlight, its a bright day with clouds passing over it.
jmcfadden wrote:
Nicely Executed test and the results speak for themselves. What is hilarious is that people want it all and do not want to pay for it. The lens performs very well considering its cost. if you want *better* then just pay for it
it's not quite that easy. I had a 14-24mm which is the better option (apparently) for barrel distortion. But it can't easily take filters (I had X-pros on mine) and the thing is massive. What I really want is another 17-40L but I want it to work on my Nikon.
TWoK wrote:
there is way more armchair shooting going on here than actually picture taking.
I appreciate the work these guys are putting in. Might not be great images but the brick wall and window are a perfect combination to see what's going on. I shoot architecture, so while it's not the most exciting thing around it needs to be straight when possible.
davidnholtjr wrote:
The 16-35 and 17-35 almost have the same distortion. But the 16-35 has much sharper corners then the 17-35 for sure from what I see.
+1
That's what I see too. Looks like a winner and possibly an alternative to the older 17-35mm for folks with the newer FX bodies.
jacobsen1 wrote:
it's not quite that easy. I had a 14-24mm which is the better option (apparently) for barrel distortion. But it can't easily take filters (I had X-pros on mine) and the thing is massive. What I really want is another 17-40L but I want it to work on my Nikon.
Where did you get the idea that the Canon 17-40 was so great on a full frame camera? Here is a review used on a 5D. Really soft corners and the distortion at 17mm doesn't look so hot, not to mention the vignetting wide open...
TWoK wrote:
All this is irrelevant and there is way more armchair shooting going on here than actually picture taking.
I'm not a pixel peeping measurebater, but with every tool I use I think it important to know its strengths and weaknesses (which every lens has) so that I can best apply it. I can make a pretty picture with every lens on the shelf, but each does certain things better and worse than others. If I don't know those strengths and weaknesses, I can't maximize my own abilities as a photographer.
gman1339 wrote:
Where did you get the idea that the Canon 17-40 was so great on a full frame camera? Here is a review used on a 5D. Really soft corners and the distortion at 17mm doesn't look so hot, not to mention the vignetting wide open...
well, I've owned three, does that count for anything? My the 17-40 has some distortion issues, sure, but it's a ~$500 lens used? Different ballgame. It's also TINY compared to the other options here yet still sealed and AFs super fast. And I've NEVER bitched about a lens wide open because my UWA gets used stopped down almost exclusively. Of course I also like the sigma 12-24mm so maybe I'm an odd duck. But the distortion on the 17-40mm never bothered me all that much but I also didn't shoot architecture back then. And the three copies were due to going back to the lens, not swapping out copies for a good one.
anyway, more samples:
not sure how I feel now.... :lol:
worst case scenario:
fixed with 6.6 worth of PS correction (the 14-24 only ever needed 5 max, usually 4):
cropped:
granted I don't have a 14-24mm here to test.
in a practical real world shoot it's not terrible:
this is the 7-14mm on the GF1, not sure how good the lens is, but the GF1 corrects for distortions when it knows the lens so the pair is amazing (better than the 14-24mm):
after the last two I'm not sure how I feel. It's not terrible in those shots, but there is some distortion. The floor shots scare me though.
That isn't so bad Ben. The distortion is minimal.And fixing it in PS will take a few seconds. It will depend on the composition in some cases but, for shooting in the house, it really isn't bad. Most of my fixes are usually at the horizon and it really isn't a big deal. The corners look much better than my 16-35 II.
