While it's always appreciated to see example shots, I think we should be able to agree that one person's images don't make a definitive argument for or against a lens.
Oh, absolutely. Controlled tests are only meaningful when done in duplicate, triplicate, etc. Multiple copies of lenses, for example. I've only presented data from one 16-35 here, for example, though I did present some aggregate data from 4 copies of the Nikon 14-24... showing you the best/worst performance out of a batch of 4 lenses.
But then, do you know my credentials? Do you trust my testing methodology? Etc., & so on & so forth. Which is why I tried to control as many variables as possible, & provide my testing conditions & RAW files if you'd like to see for yourself.
That being said, allow me to show you a quick visualization of photozone.de's MTF numbers I did of the Nikon 14-24 vs. the Canon 16-35.
As you can clearly see, Nikon extreme f/2.8
performance matches Canon's center f/11
performance (the left endpoint of the blue-dashed line matches the right endpoint of the red-solid line).Wow, seems strangely reminiscent of the pictorial examples I showed!
Meanwhile, by f/5.6
, the Nikon is as sharp at the extremes as the Canon lens ever is, anywhere
.Wow, again, seems strangely reminiscent of the pictorial examples I showed!
Now, let's take a look at extreme vs. center performance for both lenses. I'll plot extreme/center performance ratios, but this time with resolution (2-dimensional, meaning LPPH numbers have been squared) as a function of aperture), 1 being equivalent
extreme vs. center performance:
Both lenses are so sharp at the center that the extreme performance only begins approximating center performance after center performance is depleted due to diffraction effects. But the Nikon lens almost approaches center/extreme equivalence by f/11, while the Canon still only shows ~79% extreme vs. center performance by f/11. At f/2.8, extreme resolution is at a staggeringly low 26%
of center performance for Canon, while the Nikon extreme/center performance is at 62%
Meanwhile, the Canon extremes never even come remotely close to the Nikon extreme performance, at best
only achieving 61%
resolution of the Nikon's best extreme resolution performance. Put another way, at best
the Canon extreme performance is still only 82%
performance of the Nikon at its extremes.Let me restate that:
the Canon lens is capable of at the extremes is still only 61%
of the best
the Nikon lens is capable of at the extremes (2750^2/3500^2 LPPH).61%. Sounds pretty close to 50%. Half the resolution, people.Are my qualitative pictorial examples still so unbelievable? Science! It works!
But feel free to take my pictorial results that appear to, qualitatively, directly reflect photozone's quantitative findings with a grain of salt... or, better yet, do your own tests
Of course, if edge-to-edge sharpness has not bothered you in your own shots/printing workflow, then perhaps this is all entirely irrelevant to you!
Even DxO is controversial.
No, it's not. Not if you know what DXO is actually doing.
If you don't believe them/me, do the tests yourself (as I did). My numbers in my own lab setup with a 13.2 stop transmission step wedge agreed with DXO within 0.3EV. Not to mention real-world comparisons that showed that I could underexpose an image 8x (3 stops) on a D7000 & still get its shadows to look better, pushed 3 stops, than a 5D Mark III image exposed properly.
I still shoot Canon (for reasons I don't wish to enumerate here). But I'm not blind to the obvious
, which is why I use a Nikon 14-24 on my Canon 5D Mark III (for landscapes).