And for a contrary opinion for full frame on a 5D
<http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/48/cat/23>
Awful edge performance until you get to f/8, f/11. At f/11 it gives
consistent good (but not great) performance across the full zoom range.
For Canon shooters SLR Gear recommends the Canon 17-40 over the Tamron
17-35.
<http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/31/cat/11>
Except around 20mm the Canon shows equal or better performance at f/5.6
vs f/11 for the Tamron so it has a 2 stop advantage.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> 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/
|