« on: July 07, 2014, 01:27:40 PM »
And we're finally getting some Flickr traffic in the group that was setup for this new lens:
Some folks are posting full-res shots for download, FYI.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
My copy of 16-35/4L simply put old but trusty 17-40/4L into retirement. Those cornes are improved quite noticeably. No horrid CA, no mushiness, no lacking contrast. Even wide open, it's quite usable in the corners, from about f/8, it's satisfactory sharp enough for most people I guess.My copy is wonderful as well and I couldn't be happier with my new lens.It's clear from the data I have linked (as well as samples from a number of reviewers) that at landscape apertures this lens is not a massive improvement like the MTF charts implied. It's a very good lens, don't get me wrong, but the MTF charts (esp. in comparison to the lackluster 16-35 F/2.8L II and 17-40 F/4L charts) would have had me expecting larger improvements.Yes, it's not a massive improvement in numbers, but when shooting real subjects, the improved contrast, color, and absence of CA goes a long way to make better photos, even if the resolving power at f/11 and f/16 isn't significantly higher.
It would be very difficult to interest me. Any new features or sensor technology will also appear in a FF body, and it will be much better IQ wise.
Maybe is it were priced under $1000?
So I'm not being critic. I think I am going to buy this lens. But before my money comes out, I am asking this group:
1) Did Canon really deliver on those stellar MTF charts? Is this is the sharp-in-the-corner landscape lens many have been looking for?
2) For landscape work on a FF body (both on a tripod and handheld), and presuming that I want an UWA zoom, is this the best one to get?
Unless you have the absolute need for f2.8 (and for whatever reason upping the ISO won't work for you) then the f4L is much sharper - at least from f4 to f8 - in the corners. The centres are pretty much the same on both. Plus you have the bonus of the IS.
I was torn between the 70-200/4L IS and slightly slower 70-300L. Renting first made my decision easy.
Try the 24-70/4L IS both with and without IS switched on. If the slower shutter speeds allowed by the IS for static shots in poor light give you a benefit, then the lighter cheaper lens is probably better for you. IS is a bigger benefit than one one stop of of speed if the subject isn't fast moving.
The IS is very odd because you can't see the effect like you do with an unwieldy telephoto, but I think it will be a great travel/walkaround lens.
The IS is for shooting video while handholding.
Can we just call it a really good lens? Good enough to take amazing photos. And you can get bad shots too if you take a bad photo.
Thanks for all the advice. I think I will go for it as soon as I find a buyer for my 24-105
the dedicated macro lens will have to wait for another day as I am afraid that the limited use it would see doesn't justify the cost. Btw, what would be the approximate working distance to get 0.7 magnification on the dedicated 100mm macros?
which makes it all the more tricky to compare real world.
So it sounds like you've discovered why DxO use the methodology that they do.
Yes, it's also why I never tried to post up real scenes in a scientific test manner, it's tricky. I'm trying this time, but it's very tricky.
You still have to take great care with charts and constant lighting too though, as DxO seems to have not yet discovered though, or perhaps only very slowly discovering (see: 16-35 II having best corner performance at f/2.8, 70-200 2.8 II being the worst at 200mm f/2.8 of all the Canon 70-200 2.8s; 70-300 non-L having better 300mm performance than 70-300L and 300 f/4L, 24-70 f/4 IS supposedly having mediocre edges at 70mm; etc.).