jffielde: I based my conclusion on the photozone.de, not \"the digital picture\" ISO\'s. However I reviewed the photozone comparisons. The photozone generally concludes that the 14-24 has better resolution but worse distortion (which is correctable). The trouble I had with the ISO comparisons is that they were not mathematical and hard to objectively compare. However I agree that the ISO\'s above show more distortion for 14-24. I gave more weight to resolution than distortion. If you give equal weight to distortion and resolution and CA, the lens would be closer.
For example
Photozone shows 3510 for extreme edges for 14-24, vs 3025 for 14L at f8
Photozone shows 3.91% distortion vs 1.73% for 14-24, 14L respectively
Photozone shows 1.14 vs 1.37 for chromo distortion.
- I think you are seing the distortion difference.
- 14-24 can resolve more but needs more fixing.
I considered that \"the digital picture\" might have a either a bad lens copy or bad focus, but in reading the description of the testing procedure (taking the best of 10 or so), bad testing seems unlikely. Possiblly still bad copy though.
Nov 28, 2011 at 08:33 PM
Previous versions of Scott Stoness's message #10123273 « 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24 »
