Another, but different maybe landscape lens question

Many landscapers praise the newest 16-35 lens, both the f/2.8 and the f/4, and everyone loves the newest 24-70 lenses. Would landscape photos taken with both lenses set to 35mm and f/8 be distinguishable? Could you really tell one from the other?

chuckmiller wrote in post #19082884
Many landscapers praise the newest 16-35 lens, both the f/2.8 and the f/4, and everyone loves the newest 24-70 lenses. Would landscape photos taken with both lenses set to 35mm and f/8 be distinguishable? Could you really tell one from the other?

Considering the 16-35 is slightly better at middle ranges, as is the 24-70, it is very likely that the 24-70 is slightly better at 35 mm than the 16-35 is. However, the question really is if that is noticeable in real life images besides rigid testing environments.

Personally, if I had to choose just one lens out of these 2, I would choose the 16-35, either one, although 16-35 F/4L IS is obviously something that is great for landscapes especially, whereas the F/2.8 version is more of a reportage tool, due to its large maximum aperture. I guess it also depends how much you'd want to carry around I guess.

In short: regarding the question whether you would see the difference for landscapes, the answer is no, unless you are an extreme pixel peeper and are looking for the differences.

Other than that, it is a matter of what you find more important, i.e., the 16-24 mm range or the 35-70 mm range, and whether you prefer or need F/2.8 over F/4, and whether you need IS or not. And finally weight of course, although that is a bit of a moot point with a dslr. It clearly makes for a bigger difference with a MILC, but then there also would be the choice of RF 15-35 F/2.8L IS and RF 24-70 F/2.8L IS .

HTH, kind regards, Wim

The two lenses, when tested side by side with a test target (and shot with the same body) could be measured in a lab to have a certain detail resolution capability (MTF score, in line-pairs/millimeter of sensor) The differential between the two would need to be considerably large for the eye to detect any difference at all in a 8x10 print, and in a typical landscape shot it might not be perceivable at all...even when the measured numerical performance is easily quantified.

Factor in the actuality that two lenses of identical model can have MTF values that vary 10% quite unsurprisingly, and then the difference measured and quatified with one pair of lenses under test might be minimized if measuring a second pair of same lenses, rendering the generalization about relative performance (based upon the first pair test results) irrelevant.

.
There is a lot to be considered besides resolution of fine detail. . In fact, I would think that for most landscape shooters, the other factors are what would matter.

The things that mean the most are those that can not be quantified; things that are purely aesthetic and subjective in nature. . Those are the things that matter.

The character of the out of focus foreground elements.

The character of the out of focus background elements.

The color cast (can vary from copy to copy as well as from model to model). . This also varies as the light itself changes, as a lens can yield a certain character of color cast in one situation and then a slightly different character of color cast in another situation. . When light is bent in different ways, and to different extents, many different things can happen.

The degree of the vignette, as well as the character of the vignette. . Not measured in terms of light let-off in the corners, but rather in how much one likes or dislikes the look that that particular falloff produces.


.

Wilt wrote in post #19083185
The two lenses, when tested side by side with a test target (and shot with the same body) could be measured in a lab to have a certain detail resolution capability (MTF score, in line-pairs/millimeter of sensor) The differential between the two would need to be considerably large for the eye to detect any difference at all in a 8x10 print, and in a typical landscape shot it might not be perceivable at all...even when the measured numerical performance is easily quantified.

Factor in the actuality that two lenses of identical model can have MTF values that vary 10% quite unsurprisingly, and then the difference measured and quatified with one pair of lenses under test might be minimized if measuring a second pair of same lenses, rendering the generalization about relative performance (based upon the first pair test results) irrelevant.

Very true.

Put way better than I did .

Kind regards, Wim

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19083193
.
There is a lot to be considered besides resolution of fine detail. . In fact, I would think that for most landscape shooters, the other factors are what would matter.

The things that mean the most are those that can not be quantified; things that are purely aesthetic and subjective in nature. . Those are the things that matter.

The character of the out of focus foreground elements.

The character of the out of focus background elements.

The color cast (can vary from copy to copy as well as from model to model). . This also varies as the light itself changes, as a lens can yield a certain character of color cast in one situation and then a slightly different character of color cast in another situation. . When light is bent in different ways, and to different extents, many different things can happen.

The degree of the vignette, as well as the character of the vignette. . Not measured in terms of light let-off in the corners, but rather in how much one likes or dislikes the look that that particular falloff produces.


.

Well, this is why I prefer to use specific primes myself for landscape shooting, especially at the wide end. And for ultimate control and IMO best OOF fore- and backgrounds: any of the (U)WA TS-E lenses .

Kind regards, Wim

with the newest L zooms you should see no difference unless you perform an extreme rectal exam. I shoot all of my canon lenses (and sigma 14 f1.8) at any aperture and length (zooms) and results all look the same to me. but also please note I have never calibrated a lens or performed structured tests. those who think sharpness is what holds them back are generally barking up the wrong tree.

imo, all my lenses are "perfect"

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19083193
.
There is a lot to be considered besides resolution of fine detail. . In fact, I would think that for most landscape shooters, the other factors are what would matter.

The things that mean the most are those that can not be quantified; things that are purely aesthetic and subjective in nature. . Those are the things that matter.

The character of the out of focus foreground elements.

The character of the out of focus background elements.

The color cast (can vary from copy to copy as well as from model to model). . This also varies as the light itself changes, as a lens can yield a certain character of color cast in one situation and then a slightly different character of color cast in another situation. . When light is bent in different ways, and to different extents, many different things can happen.

The degree of the vignette, as well as the character of the vignette. . Not measured in terms of light let-off in the corners, but rather in how much one likes or dislikes the look that that particular falloff produces.


.

true Tom. light and composition are the big ones. even a kit lens will be sharp at f8.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19082884
..Would landscape photos taken with both lenses set to 35mm and f/8 be distinguishable? Could you really tell one from the other?

So the consensus is: Nah, not really, unless the photos are heavily and technically scrutinized.

Thx.