ws wrote:
> Interesting site. I noticed the 24-70/2.8 does considerably better than the
> comparable ranges on the 16-35 mkII. My impression is that Can*n does better
> in longer focal lengths, but I have not seen anything really impressive in
> the wider ranges. Although I have never used the 24-70/2.8. Even the 28-135
> seems to do better at 28mm.
>
I'm not sure how useful these B&W, flat test target tests are. I think
the site Chuck linked to provides better info for your questions. As to
the specific question of 16-35 I vs II:
From a test of Zuiko 18/3.5, Zeiss 18/4 and 16-35 I:
Bottom line: the Zeiss 18mm is better than the Olympus centre frame, but
the Olympus 18mm has very even performance across the frame. And both
convincingly outclass the Canon 16-35mm. It is worth noting that six
separate 16-35mm L lenses were sifted through and found wanting before
this prime specimen was found. So if you're thinking: 'bad sample', the
truth is that this one is probably about as good as it gets. Which is
why off-brand wide angle lenses are so popular right now....
From a test of Zuiko 18/3.5, Leica 19/2.8 and 16-35 II:
"It's immediately evident that some major changes have been made under
the skin to turn the Mark I, a relatively mediocre performer among
state-of-the-art wide angles, into the Mark II – a lens that bears
comparison with the finest available.
By any measure, the 16-35mm II easily outperformed the Olympus 18mm
tested, and at wide apertures, the Canon L is more attractive across the
majority of the frame than even the Leica.
Most tests (and Canon's MTF charts) indicate that the Mark I 16-35mm is
not as good in the 17-20mm range as the cheaper f4 L. Informal testing
conducted as a postscript to this review confirms that the Mark II
finally justifies its extra expense by delivering image quality superior
to the 17-40mm in all departments. About time.
However well the 16-35L acquits itself, we shouldn't forget that even on
the lowly 5D, the shiny new Mark II still doesn't have the legs to
perform in the outer image circle. At no aperture did the lens deliver a
truly credible Zone C (corner) and that's a problem the next generation
of full frame sensors is likely to exploit without mercy.
Ultimately, though, it would be churlish not to applaud Canon for making
good on its promise to delivery prime-level quality with zoom
flexibility in the ultrawide range. In terms of image quality, it may
not be the best money can buy – but, for many demanding professionals,
it may finally be good enough."
> I just want a good 21mm lens. I let my oly 21/2 go, it was very nice.
>
If that's what you want, why not find another?
> What is the point of a FF sensor with out a decent wide? The Can*n 24-105/4
> just doesn't impress me, other than it is a convenient range, and yes, most
> of my shots are with that lens. But even the cheaper 28-135 seems better in a
> lot of ways, just too slow on the top end.
>
> The loss in the 16-35 mkII at 35mm seems like net zero gain to me over the
> version 1. I would rather have a good 16-18mm prime and a good 35mm prime,
A few words ago, "I just want a good 21mm lens. " Trouble making up your
mind? More from the 16-6 site:
"OK: so everyone knows the best 21mm in the world by a country mile is
the Zeiss 21mm, but not everyone can afford one, and not everyone can
live with the awkward waveform distortion. So, what most people have
come to realise is that the next best 21mm is the really very fine
Olympus 21mm f2 and its near-identically performing f3.5 sibling.
Everyone also knows that the best wide angle zoom in the world is the
Leica 21-35mm <http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/2135test.html>, which is
very lovely, but whose performance tails off slightly
<http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/2135test.html> at the wide end, where it
is just outclassed for resolution and distortion (but not CA) by the
tiny, jewel-like Zuikos. Everyone who has tested them agrees that all
these are considerably better than Canon's L series WA zooms, the
16-35mm and 17-40mm. And that the Canon lenses are generally equalled or
exceeded (depending on which sample you have) by the Sigma 15-30mm which
is probably the best pound-for-pound lens in this category. Unless you
prefer corner sharpness over chromatic aberration and serious barrel
distortion - in which case you'd be better off with the Tamron 17-35mm SP."
> but Cany*n doesn't seem to think it is worth pursuing a non-zoom wide.
I suspect they think the market is too small. They are really aiming to
make wide zooms that as good as older primes.
> ...
> Am I being too picky?
Well ... What do you want to do with the lens(es)? If you want to make
images for web display and reasonable size prints, do you need the
ultimate lens(es)? If you are willing to go beyond CAnon and Zuiko, did
you notice the tag line above? "Unless you prefer corner sharpness over
chromatic aberration and serious barrel distortion - in which case you'd
be better off with the Tamron 17-35mm SP."
Hmmmm... Poor corner sharpness is not correctable in post. Sure, you can
mask it for smaller images, but it's really not fixable. As it happens,
my wanderings in this thicket ended up with the Tammy. CA? Well, I
haven't noticed it, which doesn't mean CH might not. And CA can be
rather well corrected in post.
-
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/PurpleFringe/BlueLight.htm>
- <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/PurpleFringe/Toyota.htm>
- <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/PurpleFringe/Watch.htm>
_ <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/ChromaticA.htm>
Barrel distortion? Well, it's really that more common distortion in
really wide lenses, wave-form, that causes a funny bulge in the middle.
There is little distortion at the 35mm end, but quite a lot at the 17mm
end. The thing is, it's beautifully correctable in post with virtually
no effort using $15 PTLens. Stand-alone or plug-in, it reads the EXIF
and corrects automatically. You can really see the form of the
distortion by rolling rapidly back and forth on these, but be careful of
motion sickness. :-)
- <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/HearstCastle/CdM01.htm>
- <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/Oak01.htm>
-
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/OakCan02.htm>
The distortion is much less @ 35mm.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/OakCan04.htm>
Here's a fill pixel center sample.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/HearstCastle/Pool.htm>
There are lots of shots with the 17-35 in this gallery.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/HearstCastle/index.html>
Sounds like a sales pitch, I suppose. I'd rather characterize it as
comments from a happy user. I'm not sure I've seen any full tests on FF.
There are several done on small sensors, but they are of limited value.
It gets a high rating on FM forums.
<http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=245&sort=7&cat=43&page=1>
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|