kevindar
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24 | |
I have had 3 copies of 16-35II. the first one was bad. the next two were very close and I consider both very good, far better than my 16-35 orginal, and a copy of 17-40 that I tried. the 16-35II has a bit of field curvature with the corners focusing a little closer. At f 5.6 the corners are corners are very close to the 14-24, but not to the extreme corners, that last 3% of image. and I agree that at certain apertures and focal length, in certain areas of the frame, it may perform slightly better than Nikon. and of course if there is any reason for flare, it really outperforms it.
My results are very consistent with 16-9 test, photozone, test, and much better than the digital picture test. So unless your lens was made by elves, or your Nikon was really substandard, ( a lot of people on Nikon forum complain about bad samples), I think my results are representative of a good copy of Nikon and Canon.
As I said, for most of my shooting, I still favor the 16-35 II.
AGeoJO wrote:
kevindar wrote:
I have a comparison of 16-35II and 14-24 http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=36845899 the nikon is better even at f11, but they are close. Wide open in the corners, there is no comparison. In return, the canon is much less flare prone, takes filters, is weather sealed, has a great range, good star burst, has autofocus, is smaller and lighter, is a more useful range (for me), aberrations are easy to fix in acr due to profile, and again, at f11, they are very close. It remains my most used ultrawide landscape/indoor lens.
Either you were comparing a substandard copy of 16-35 Mark II with a great copy of Nikkor 14-24 or I got a substandard Nikkor 14-24 and compared it with a great copy of 16-35mm Mark II. Even at f/11.0 my first copy of the 16-35mm Mark II couldn\'t even touch the Nikkor\'s performance. On the other hand, the performance of my second and current copy of16-35mm Mark II is so good starting at f/5.6 that I finally gave up the Nikkot since I didn\'t want to put up with adapters and inconvenience of alternative lenses anymore. I agree with you that the corner performance up to and including f/4.0 of the Nikkor lens was better, although the center area of the 16-35mm Mark II was no slouch even at f/2.8. But when stopped down to between f/5.6 to f/11.0 or so, the whatever minor advantages of using the Nikkor completely disappear in my book. Again, it is possible that we are talking about copy-to-copy variations between yours and my findings here.
|
