Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 05 Feb 2015 (Thursday) 07:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced

 
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Apr 05, 2015 10:32 |  #1066

David Arbogast wrote in post #17505095 (external link)
No, we don't have actual comparison data: that would be lenses tested on the same sensor. We have different data that you are using to extrapolate a result.

I am not trying or desiring to defend these Sony lenses, but I do get frustrated when I see these wild accusations that one product is "far inferior" to another. We're going to see the same hyperbole when Sony/Nikon announce their 50 MP cameras. The poor 5DS R will be regarded as "far inferior". And it won't be true.

I had a D810 with 14-24 and an a7R with the FE 16-35mm. The 14-24mm enjoys a great reputation, but when I tested the two lenses on their native 36 MP sensors I struggled to find much difference in real-world scene tests, and I did a lot of pixel-peeping. I became so comfortable with the FE 16-35mm performance that I sold the D810 and 14-24 (just preferred the smaller size). I wouldn't be surprised if the FE 16-35mm was not able to hold an equal DXO score to the Canon version if tested on identical sensor because the FE 16-35mm drops off a good deal at 35mm. But, I don't care: it's a 16-28mm lens for me. I have two 35mm primes that I will use before using the 16-35mm. These Mpix scores for zooms are likely averaged over the whole range, so they don't give any sort of detailed picture of the lens' performance.

I own/use two of the top two DXO Mpix scored lenses (Zeiss 1.4/55mm ZE, and 2/135mm ZE), so I know what amazing lens performance looks like, and yet I also enjoy my Sony FE 24-70mm, which is supposed to be a turd of a lens. I get sharp images from that lens on my a7R somehow. :)

Well said! This matches pretty well what my experience is


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,001 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1615
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Apr 05, 2015 10:41 |  #1067

In my view any lens test that requires the lens to be tested on a digital camera body is pointless. It tells you very little in relation to lenses that cannot be tested on the same system. For me only lens tests that have been carried out on independent lens testing optical test benches provide reliable information. Unfortunately, thanks to the cost of a decent optical test bench, they seem to be pretty few and far between in this digital age. The funny thing is that if one were able to use film, where you have the same recording medium across all bodies, doing on camera tests would not really be nearly as much of an issue. It seems that back in the days of film though that many of the magazines did actually have some quite good optical test benches for testing lens performance on.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 05, 2015 13:48 |  #1068

BigAl007 wrote in post #17505159 (external link)
In my view any lens test that requires the lens to be tested on a digital camera body is pointless. It tells you very little in relation to lenses that cannot be tested on the same system. For me only lens tests that have been carried out on independent lens testing optical test benches provide reliable information. Unfortunately, thanks to the cost of a decent optical test bench, they seem to be pretty few and far between in this digital age. The funny thing is that if one were able to use film, where you have the same recording medium across all bodies, doing on camera tests would not really be nearly as much of an issue. It seems that back in the days of film though that many of the magazines did actually have some quite good optical test benches for testing lens performance on.

Alan

That's where bodies like the A7r come in. You can test both Canon and Nikon-mount lenses on it, and live view takes AF out of the equation too.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,001 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1615
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Apr 05, 2015 17:13 |  #1069

Shadowblade wrote in post #17505363 (external link)
That's where bodies like the A7r come in. You can test both Canon and Nikon-mount lenses on it, and live view takes AF out of the equation too.

But you are still limiting the test to the performance of the camera. The advantage of an optical test bench is that it is able to independently test the technical limits of the lens without limitations being imposed by other systems.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jonneymendoza
Goldmember
3,788 posts
Likes: 383
Joined Apr 2008
     
Apr 05, 2015 18:06 |  #1070

Mornnb wrote in post #17504528 (external link)
The 16-35mm L 2.8 is one of Canon's weakest lenses.
.

You are talking rubbish imo.

the 16-35L f2.8 is an amazing lens and one of the best landscape/wide angle zooms you can get


Canon 5dmkIII | Canon 85L 1.2 | Sigma 35mm ART 1.4|Canon 16-35mm L 2.8 |Canon 24-70mm L f2.8 | Canon 70-200mm F2.8L MK2 | Canon 430EX MK2 Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vk2gwk
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,738 posts
Gallery: 256 photos
Likes: 670
Joined Jun 2009
Location: One Mile Beach, NSW 2316, Australia
     
Apr 05, 2015 18:29 |  #1071

The 16-35mm L 2.8 is one of Canon's weakest lenses.

the 16-35L f2.8 is an amazing lens and one of the best landscape/wide angle zooms you can get

I love this thread. So funny. Some people making unsubstantiated statements and others responding with unsubstantiated replies.... :) Really informative.


My name is Henk. and I believe "It is all in the eye of the beholder....."
Image Editing is allowed. Please explain what you did!
5D MkIV 5DMkIII, 50D, 24-105/1:4L IS USM + 100-400/4-5.6L IS USM + 50mm 1.4 USM + Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 VC + Sigma 150-600mm Sports + 580EXII + 430EX + YN568EXII, triggers, reflectors, umbrellas and some more bits and pieces...
Photos on: Flickr! (external link) and on my own web site. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 05, 2015 19:15 |  #1072

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17505663 (external link)
You are talking rubbish imo.

the 16-35L f2.8 is an amazing lens and one of the best landscape/wide angle zooms you can get

Not according to any published, objective test of lens optical performance out there.

Sure, it has great performance in the centre, and a nice seven-bladed aperture for 14-pointed sunstars/highlights. But the edge and corner performance on full-frame is dismal.

It's a good UWA for photojournalism, since corners are generally less critical there. But for landscapes and other work where performance across the entire frame is critical, it falls far short.

There's a reason so many landscapers have adopted the Nikon 14-24, and it's not for the extra 2mm of width.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,455 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8240
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Apr 05, 2015 19:56 |  #1073

Shadowblade wrote in post #17505739 (external link)
Not according to any published, objective test of lens optical performance out there.

Sure, it has great performance in the centre, and a nice seven-bladed aperture for 14-pointed sunstars/highlights. But the edge and corner performance on full-frame is dismal.

It's a good UWA for photojournalism, since corners are generally less critical there. But for landscapes and other work where performance across the entire frame is critical, it falls far short.

There's a reason so many landscapers have adopted the Nikon 14-24, and it's not for the extra 2mm of width.

True. I wish someone would mount all these lenses on an a7R and publish imatest results for all of them at common focal lengths. It would be nice to know how all the UWA lenses compare on a level playing field. The 14-24mm is outstanding, but has finally Canon caught up with the 16-35mm f/4L and 11-24mm f/4L?


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
Post edited over 4 years ago by Mornnb. (4 edits in all)
     
Apr 05, 2015 23:07 |  #1074

Shadowblade wrote in post #17505363 (external link)
That's where bodies like the A7r come in. You can test both Canon and Nikon-mount lenses on it, and live view takes AF out of the equation too.

However. The problem here is slight misalignment in a lens adaptor can make a noticeable difference to the measured numbers in a test. Nothing beats an optical bench test.

BigAl007 wrote in post #17505606 (external link)
But you are still limiting the test to the performance of the camera. The advantage of an optical test bench is that it is able to independently test the technical limits of the lens without limitations being imposed by other systems.

Alan

This is not without issues however Because the layer of glass over the sensor differs between makers and can make a significant difference to the lens performance. Canon designs their lens with a mind to the thickness of their sensor stack, which is thinner than Nikon's. Leica has the thinnest as they optimised the sensor to work better with classic designs created for a film era. As film of course has no layer of glass.
There is no 100% completely precise way to compare lenses from different platforms.

Shadowblade wrote in post #17505739 (external link)
Not according to any published, objective test of lens optical performance out there.

Sure, it has great performance in the centre, and a nice seven-bladed aperture for 14-pointed sunstars/highlights. But the edge and corner performance on full-frame is dismal.

It's a good UWA for photojournalism, since corners are generally less critical there. But for landscapes and other work where performance across the entire frame is critical, it falls far short.

There's a reason so many landscapers have adopted the Nikon 14-24, and it's not for the extra 2mm of width.


It used to be one of landscape shooters number one complaints with Canon, after dynamic range.
Fortunately things have much improved with the 16-35mm f4 IS and the 11-24mm. Canon's caught up to Nikon's wide angle lenses at last.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jonneymendoza
Goldmember
3,788 posts
Likes: 383
Joined Apr 2008
     
Apr 06, 2015 03:59 |  #1075

Shadowblade wrote in post #17505739 (external link)
Not according to any published, objective test of lens optical performance out there.

Sure, it has great performance in the centre, and a nice seven-bladed aperture for 14-pointed sunstars/highlights. But the edge and corner performance on full-frame is dismal.

It's a good UWA for photojournalism, since corners are generally less critical there. But for landscapes and other work where performance across the entire frame is critical, it falls far short.

There's a reason so many landscapers have adopted the Nikon 14-24, and it's not for the extra 2mm of width.

link?

stuff i read indicate otherwise and say that the lens is sharp across the frame especially on f5.6 and above


Canon 5dmkIII | Canon 85L 1.2 | Sigma 35mm ART 1.4|Canon 16-35mm L 2.8 |Canon 24-70mm L f2.8 | Canon 70-200mm F2.8L MK2 | Canon 430EX MK2 Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Apr 06, 2015 04:10 |  #1076

jonneymendoza wrote in post #17506153 (external link)
link?

stuff i read indicate otherwise and say that the lens is sharp across the frame especially on f5.6 and above


http://www.photozone.d​e …-canon_1635_28_5d?start​=1 (external link)

It improves markedly from f/5.6, but I'd still hardly call it sharp. Just look at the corners of an f/8 shot and see for yourself.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jocau
Goldmember
Avatar
1,838 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 338
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Belgium
     
Apr 06, 2015 04:19 |  #1077

A lens reviewed by Photozone which gets an optical score of 2.5 stars out of 5 is not what I'd call "an amazing lens". In fact, calling it a rather crappy lens is in my opinion much closer to the truth.


550D | EF-S 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6 IS | EF 50mm F/1.8 II | EF 70-200mm F/4L IS | Speedlite 580EX II | LumoPro LP180 | Gitzo GT3541XLS | Arca-Swiss Monoball Z1 SP | ONA Bowery (black, non-leather) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
11,455 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Likes: 8240
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
     
Apr 06, 2015 06:35 |  #1078

Shadowblade wrote in post #17506162 (external link)
http://www.photozone.d​e …-canon_1635_28_5d?start​=1 (external link)

It improves markedly from f/5.6, but I'd still hardly call it sharp. Just look at the corners of an f/8 shot and see for yourself.

Interesting...the Photozone numbers actually look pretty good. At f/8 the numbers are a little worse than the EF 16-35mm f/4L, but not extremely different. I had thought the 16-35mm f/4L was supposed to be a major improvement over the 16-35mm f/2.8L II. The impression I get is that Photozone does not test a large sample size of lenses, so maybe they got a good f/2.8L II and a bad f/4L to test.

jocau wrote in post #17506165 (external link)
A lens reviewed by Photozone which gets an optical score of 2.5 stars out of 5 is not what I'd call "an amazing lens". In fact, calling it a rather crappy lens is in my opinion much closer to the truth.

Their final star rating can be interesting, but the rating can sometimes seem odd when considering their published data. It doesn't appear to be a bad (crappy) lens based on the numbers they published. But, I agree: it doesn't look amazing either.

It would be nice to discuss lens comparisons without resorting to extreme adjectives, like "crappy" or "amazing"? These things are typically not as bad or as good as that.


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, Sigma 35mm F/1.2, Loxia 85mm, Batis 85mm, Batis 135mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LonelyBoy
Goldmember
1,474 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 971
Joined Oct 2014
     
Apr 06, 2015 08:05 |  #1079

David Arbogast wrote in post #17505785 (external link)
True. I wish someone would mount all these lenses on an a7R and publish imatest results for all of them at common focal lengths. It would be nice to know how all the UWA lenses compare on a level playing field. The 14-24mm is outstanding, but has finally Canon caught up with the 16-35mm f/4L and 11-24mm f/4L?

Per Roger over at LensRentals, adapters are unsuitable for lens testing.


https://www.flickr.com​/photos/127590681@N03/ (external link)
I love a like, but feedback (including CC) is even better!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
Post edited over 4 years ago by Mornnb.
     
Apr 06, 2015 08:08 |  #1080

The 16-35mm F4 is noticeably sharper in the Digital Picture comparison, even at f8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3 (external link)

And compared to the 11-24mm:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=3 (external link)

Which appears to be on par with the 15mm Zeiss Distagon, which has been regarded as the worlds best ultra wide angle.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=3 (external link)


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

309,403 views & 241 likes for this thread
OFFICIAL : 5DS and 5DS R Announced
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dayuan99
649 guests, 305 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.