Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alex_Mustard

Canon FF lens choice

Recommended Posts

 

 

I think the top vs bottom of frame differences are because the camera is not parallel to the test chart - and not representative of an asymmetric problem with the lens? I'm not sure if you are joking!  

 

I have also heard the chat about the QC variability of these lenses. As James says - take your camera to the shop and try several!

 

No, Alex, just this once I'm not joking.

 

If you look at Craig's test shot, the 16:9 number is clearly softer at the bottom corners than the top corners - and the test chart finishes just where the dodgy bit of this lens starts. If you look at my brick wall, it's also definitely softer at the bottom corners than the top corners (I posted the 100% crops in a recent thread). I thought this was just my lens, but it's possible that there's a trend here. I'm aware of a grand total of 4 full frame 17-40L test shots published on the web, of which 2 are on this thread. And as I discovered on the 'dive medical' thread, just because data's not statistically significant, that doesn't mean it's not important! :roll:

 

I was joking about shooting upside down (although it would work!), and the bit about the L-quality blurriness. Just so you know. :wink:

 

I've got no reason to think this is a poor quality example 17-40L; I'd estimate I've shot 15,000 frames with it on my crop sensor camera, this particular lens is better than the 20/2.8 and 24/2.8 primes. Its performance in general is better than I expected on the 1Ds.

 

I don't think that the 1Ds MkII gave succh severe vignetting. Am I wrong? Perhaps Canon will work on this in software - boost the corners to match certain lenses.  

 

These problems make me wonder what all the FF hubub is about! This is totally unacceptable for landscape work in my view.

 

Yes, you're wrong! 1Ds Mk2 will give equal vignetting, and the appearance of worse corner performance (because the centre is relatively better).

 

Some would argue that this is because of angle of incidence of light in the corners and digital sensors not coping with this as well as film. Others would argue that this is rubbish and that we just used to spend less time photographing walls in the velvia days! :D

 

This lens is fine for landscape work - at f11, on a tripod - check my 17mm shot I linked to in my earlier post. The FF hubbub is justified! A sharp vignette-free 11 megapixel shot at 17mm is a beautiful thing, and this lens will deliver that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the image linked above, and I thought that the vignetting was apparent and distracting especially in the foreground. Very nice image though, and I don't think it is spoiled by the vignetting, I'm just not convinced that this is acceptable performance.

 

To my eye - the 1.3X crop might be the sweet spot for sensor size.

 

Not trying to pick a fight, as I'm awed by the macro performance of the FF cameras, but FF for macro and crop sensor for WA is much the opposite of what I expected.

 

The DR in the above image looks very impressive. Has it been post processed or is this the performance out of the camera. Very nice indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'll have to shoot the Kodak FF with the Nikkor 17-35 before I send it off tomorrow. Now if I can only find a brick wall...

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can get a used 1Ds for US$3700 or so, which is relatively cheap

 

It might be relatively cheap, but someone has pushed the slider bar way to the right. I never conceived of spending over a $1000 for a film body.

 

Whitey, you listed the Tamron 90mm as one of the lenses you've used. Could you compare that to the Canon macros you talked about? I like to hear a comparison to say the 100mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not trying to pick a fight, as I'm awed by the macro performance of the FF cameras, but FF for macro and crop sensor for WA is much the opposite of what I expected.  

 

Kasey, it's OK fella, I don't think this thread has bought me to fighting point yet... :wink:

 

The 17-40L has no real vignetting on this lens at the f/11 aperture I shot that photo at. I suspect what you see in the picture is just shadow. Check out this thread (the bit at the end on page 3)

http://www.wetpixel.com/PNphpBB2-viewtopic...-start-30.phtml

from last week - there's a very fine, non-vignetting photo of the very same wall at f11. I won't bore everyone by posting yet more wall shots (I promise!!! :shock: ), but the point of shooting them is that vignetting and distortion are way more obvious on a wall than a real life shot.

 

The point of the above f4 17mm wall shot was to show you this lens at its worst, because for me it does alter the way I use this lens - I'm not trying to discourage anyone who's thinking of going Canon full frame. On the 10D, I had no hesitation shooting at f/4, but the 1Ds just shows up too many flaws wide open to be useable for the majority of shots I do.

 

(BTW, The shot is post processed from two raw conversions from the same raw file - the dynamic range isn't that good straight out of the camera.)

 

James, the wall is on the side of my house. You'd be more than welcome to use it if you wish. Bring the Kodak and we'll shoot a comparison of Nikon v Canon. By the way (and I can't believe I'm trying to point out interesting features in a wall photo), do you like the vertical wire down the wall? That's for keeping the roof on when a category 5 cyclone hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can get a used 1Ds for US$3700 or so, which is relatively cheap

 

It might be relatively cheap, but someone has pushed the slider bar way to the right. I never conceived of spending over a $1000 for a film body.

 

Whitey, you listed the Tamron 90mm as one of the lenses you've used. Could you compare that to the Canon macros you talked about? I like to hear a comparison to say the 100mm.

 

It's probably only cheap compared to the $7000 it was a few months ago. Or a P25 MF back. Still way more than I'd like to pay - particularly for something I may want to take underwater, given my recent propensity for flooding things!

 

I've had the Tamron 90mm macro since 1998, but I just don't really like this lens. It's very sharp, but AF is slow. I also like the look of the Ikelite port for the 100mm USM, which is the main reason I'm in the process of buying the 100mm USM myself. I'll let you know how they compare in a couple of weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now if I can only find a brick wall...

 

I know you have a brick house James, so you're not getting out of it that easy :wink:

 

And some of the houses in your street have nice horizontal siding that will show barrell distortion quite well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, ask and ye shall receive! I took a number of photos with the Kodak and the 17-35 before I ship today. I shot JPEG. I resized from 4500 pix wide to 500 and had to sharpen after that at 120 .7 0

 

[Edit: OK, it looks like this post got FUBAR'd when I moved my albums around. Images can be found at: http://www.reefpix.org/gallery/album87?page=2 ]

 

 

Here's F2.8:

 

f28.jpg

 

And a corner crop:

 

f28_crop.jpg

 

Here's F8

 

f8.jpg

 

And a corner crop:

 

f8_crop.jpg

 

And for vignetting and sharpness comparison, I shot my garage door in deep shadow:

 

vignette.jpg

 

Vignetting is really easy to correct in the RAW converter, but I left it in here for comparison to other lenses.

 

My conclusions: Barrel distortion is MUCH better w/ the Nikon. Sharpness is a little better, but not drastically better. Vignetting is hard to compare without equal test photos. The brick wall at f2.8 shows very little vignetting. The garage door in shadow shows a LOT.

 

Your thoughts folks?

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is starting to get interesting!

 

Now that there are a whole set of WA DX lenses out for cropped sensors and a high megapixel dx camera due out soon from Nikon it would be interesting to test lens performance on both DX and FF cameras to see if there might not be some advantages yet with the cropped format.

 

Since the 17-35mm (or 16-35) on FF is basically the 12-24mm (or 10-22 more or less) on a cropped sensor, I wonder how these lenses stack up in terms of barrel distortion edge sharpness and vigenetting? How about the 10.5mm on dx vs the 16mm on FF?

 

It doesn't make much sense IMHO to say that the 17-35 performs better on a cropped sensor. This that is obvious. But does the cropped system afford any benifit in lens performance to counter the possible disadvantages in noise performance? (I'm not sure we are at the noise performance limit yet with the current megapixel range--maybe in consumer digicams)

 

Anyone with a bunch of gear to compare care to try?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing Re: test setup.

 

Rob, can you post your exposure info and test setup? Did you use a tripod? I agree that you should be more parallel to the wall. It looks as though you used a flash?

 

It looks as though you might have used a flash as it is very bright in the middle and less-so as you go out. One concern I have is that if you used a flash and the exposure was long and not on a stable tripod the corner sharpness could be due to motion blur in the areas not well illuminated by the flash. Maybe this is just the effect of extreme vignetting?

 

It would be better to do the test in full sunlight on a tripod where all 4 coners are not in the shade.

 

Thanks Rob for being willing to post your quick test results. I don't mean to pick apart something that was never intended as anything more than a quick snapshot. Its just that it got the engineering wheels turning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the 17-35mm (or 16-35) on FF is basically the 12-24mm (or 10-22 more or less) on a cropped sensor, I wonder how these lenses stack up in terms of barrel distortion edge sharpness and vigenetting? How about the 10.5mm on dx vs the 16mm on FF?  

 

It doesn't make much sense IMHO to say that the 17-35 performs better on a cropped sensor. This that is obvious. But does the cropped system afford any benifit in lens performance to counter the possible disadvantages in noise performance? (I'm not sure we are at the noise performance limit yet with the current megapixel range--maybe in consumer digicams)

 

Anyone with a bunch of gear to compare care to try?

 

This is an interesting question. Larger dynamic range of the FF sensor will be useful in some places, and packing 12M pixels on a 1.5x crop chip also has limitations. You'll run into diffraction and lens resolution limits at a wider aperture.

 

I have the 10-22. I can take a few test shot if I can find a brickwall. I live in earthquake country; we don't have brick buildings here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Herb,

 

Cinder blocks work if you back up further.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One more thing Re: test setup.  

 

Rob, can you post your exposure info and test setup? Did you use a tripod? I agree that you should be more parallel to the wall.  It looks as though you used a flash?  

 

It looks as though you might have used a flash as it is very bright in the middle and less-so as you go out. One concern I have is that if you used a flash and the exposure was long and not on a stable tripod the corner sharpness could be due to motion blur in the areas not well illuminated by the flash. Maybe this is just the effect of extreme vignetting?

 

UWphotonewbie, shot at 17mm, f4, 1/4s, iso 100, tripod mount, mirror lock up, cable release, JPEG.

 

Light was indirect and diffuse in quality, and definitely not flash! (what kind of a dodgy wall tester do you think I am? :D ). It was just as or after the sun was setting, so there was no direct light - you would expect a more contrasty and more apparently sharp image if I'd shot this with direct sunlight. Sensor plane was as parallel to wall. I'm afraid I'm not an engineer, but I do think my lens testing methodology will stand up to close scrutiny! :D

 

The shot in this thread had manual levels adjustment as previously stated - this obviously makes the vignetting look worse, but it represents what I do to every shot I take so I thought it was more realistic. I'm not trying to make this lens look good, I just want to know its limitations so I can work around them. You can't compare vignetting to the Nikon shot unless it's also had levels adjustment applied.

 

James, I'm not sure about your conclusions re: the Nikkor 17-35's perfromance, my eyes don't entirely agree but then it's a bit hard to compare directly given the different lighting. I think both lenses are pretty horrible in the corners wide open. It would be interesting to test them side by side (I haven't seen this done elsewhere), and my offer for you to use my wall still stands. I do like your wall though, very nice.

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all interesting stuff. My only concern, as all the testers state, is that they are all testing lenses under different lighting conditions (on different bricks).

 

Ideally - and I realise this is not going to happen - I would like to see all the shots done at the same time, with housed cameras, on swimming pool tiles.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shot at 17mm, f4, 1/4s, iso 100, tripod mount, mirror lock up, cable release, JPEG.

 

Sounds like you did everything right I hope you didn't take my comments the wrong way. :oops: I'll join you in being underwhelmed by the performance of this lens. Lots of viginetting and blurry corners. I've never ytied this test but I hope the 12-24mm on a dx sensor looks better than that.

 

I agree with Alex. Would need to be done under the same conditions to be meaningful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never tried this test but I hope the 12-24mm on a dx sensor looks better than that.

Yeah, but it's still a DX sensor. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

I'm posting in this thread with the results for the Sigma 12-24 HSM

 

I shot it on the 1DmkII today, which is a 1.25 crop camera. Sorry, but I don't have a FF canon to test it on.

 

Here is f4.5 (minimum f-stop) at 12mm:

 

f4_5at12mm.jpg

 

Very little barrel distortion. Pretty good compared to the Canon.

 

Crops from lower corners:

 

f4_5crop.jpg

 

f4_5crop2.jpg

 

Sharpness in the corners could be better, but is at least as good as the shots I've seen from Canon lenses.

 

Here's the same shots and crops at f8 @ 12mm:

 

f4_5at12mm.jpg

 

f8crop.jpg

 

f8crop2.jpg

 

Looks very good at f8

 

I like this lens because I can use it on any Canon body. It's big, but not much bigger than my Nikon 17-35 used to be. The front element sticks out FAR and it's quite round so I'm worried about flare and I will need to be more careful about using hoods, etc. Although I don't think it should be too much of a problem underwater with a dome and dome hood.

 

Anyhow, thought you all would like to see this. I'm keeping the lens.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used the lens for one year now (until now just topside) and it took me a while to become satisfied using it. AF works flawlessly on close subjects. But a few meters to infinity it can be pretty unreliable. But I assign this to the enormous DOF (short focal length, 4.5 delivers already a big DOF and in addition less light to the AF system). However in worse cases the AF is not completely off or unusable, just a bit unprecise when locking on small infinity subjects. Pressing everybody's favourite * button twice with two targets having the same great distance (near infinity position) can result in slightly different AF settings. Having HSM it's comfortable to override the AF quickly.

 

I've housed the lens with an appropriate extension ring matching the lens's optics. I hope AF performs well on the dome's virtual image which is close :-) I will know in two weeks.

 

I have experienced Corner performance on full frame is naturally poor wide open. But pretty acceptable stopped down taking into account the lens delivers rectilinear 122° FOV. Except the controversial Voigtländer 12mm 5.6 Heliar it's the only 35mm lens doing 122° (and the only SLR lens).

 

I see the lens as a decent performer on a cropped sensor. On full frame there are some natural drawbacks but on the other hand you get an incomparable Guinness FOV.

 

If considering an upgrade in the future beyond 1.6 crop the lens is a very nice, solid built and reasonably priced alternative solution to the Canon 10-22mm.

 

So When my 1Ds arrives (not tomorrow :lol: ) I can/will continue using this lens LOL :o

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been thinking about this a lot myself, a doing due diligence. I think it is fair to say you buy Nikkors for the wideangles and Canon for the exotic tele-primes... Others will have their own opinions I'm sure.

 

I would use the new 100mm 2.8 IS L (Image Stabilized) version!

Edited by haring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would use the new 100mm 2.8 IS L (Image Stabilized) version!

 

Yes! Nikon wide angle lenses are awesome! Canon makes a 14mm L lens. Get the second (Mark II) version! that is the best (Ultra) wide angle Canon lens...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...