January 16, 2018, 10:27:45 PM

Author Topic: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]  (Read 82843 times)

D_Rochat

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #75 on: June 16, 2012, 06:49:49 PM »
Thanks Sarangiman,

I'm not quite sure what to do with those comparisons, with widely different settings.  Were you handheld or on a tri-pod for these?  Something(s) seems a bit off, I would say hopefully non-offensively, that this samples makes both lenses seem unimpressive (please don't take any offense to that, as none is intended).

I'm posting a recent sample from the Canon 16-35II shot handheld on a 5D (classic) @35mm, f/11, ISO 1600 with a fast shutter of 1/1600 s.  I'm posting a full resolution sample .jpg that was originally shot in RAW and slightly tweaked in Adobe Camera Raw.

This shot was never meant as any sort of test of this lens, or to drip the last drop of quality out of the lens, I was just walking around and snapping some pictures, it's not the best shot technically or artistically and the noise at ISO 1600 on my camera likely degrade the sharpness slightly, but I thought it might be useful to post as I had it handy.

http://i.minus.com/ibayVUvqc4tBP0.jpg (10MB)

Looks good and I think that might be an interesting high contrast b&w. What are the blotches from on the top part of the image?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #75 on: June 16, 2012, 06:49:49 PM »

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #76 on: June 16, 2012, 07:03:39 PM »
Looks good and I think that might be an interesting high contrast b&w. What are the blotches from on the top part of the image?

Thanks, I'll give that B&W conversion a try and post the results.  The blotches are quite probably smudges of gunk on my lens filter.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 07:17:51 PM by Jettatore »

sarangiman

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #77 on: June 16, 2012, 07:18:06 PM »
Quote
I'm not quite sure what to do with those comparisons, with widely different settings.  Were you handheld or on a tri-pod for these?  Something(s) seems a bit off, I would say hopefully non-offensively, that this samples makes both lenses seem unimpressive (please don't take any offense to that, as none is intended).

What exactly do you mean by widely different settings? If you speak of the flare on the Canon lens -- that's simply b/c the sun had set further during the time between shots on the Nikon vs. the Canon. But sharpness is still quite easy to judge. If you're talking about my different apertures-- that was the whole point: that at f/2.8 the Nikon lens exceeds f/11 performance on the Canon. Additionally, I posted both f/2.8 lenses.

These are all taken on a tripod.

I also don't see anything unimpressive about the Nikon shots... care to clarify? The Nikon shots are pretty much sharp edge to edge!

Your shot looks good, but it doesn't speak to the edge-to-edge performance of the lens. You have continually varying distance of subject from the bottom of the frame to the top, with not much/any detail for comparison at the top (mostly just sky). My tests were designed to evaluate the flat field performance of the lens, something of interest typically to landscape photographers. And my tests are hardly showing anything surprising or new for those of who've actually compared the performance of the Nikon 14-24 against lesser lenses. For example, the guys over at 16-9.net.

Also keep in mind: often a wide angle lens can't maintain focus at infinity across the field (when you've intended to focus at infinity) because of field curvature. This'll often result in closer subjects coming in to focus around the edges if you focused the center at infinity. Therefore your image with subjects of varying distance is not indicative of the ability of the lens to focus on distant landscapes across the field-of-view.

Also remember that a 12MP camera will not show defects as well as a 22MP camera, or 36MP, etc.

sarangiman

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #78 on: June 16, 2012, 07:20:57 PM »
Quote
Here is another image from the same day, this time a smaller file size and shot at the 16mm end.
f/2.8, 1/1250, ISO 100

Even at that small image size, I can see incredible softness on the sides... and even well into the frame from the sides.

So, no surprises.

And, again, none of these shots speak to the flat field ability of the lens. Which is where the Nikon shines.

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #79 on: June 16, 2012, 07:26:58 PM »
You forgot to post the obligatory $1900 price tag :(

This sounds like a very good FF lens and a wicked crop-body lens . . . seriously though, if we're super lucky it'll be $1400

Considering Canon isn't shy sticking high prices on new lenses, and that the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 is priced at $2000, I think it's safe to assume an EF 14-24mm f/2.8 L would cost as much.

Actually, I think that if Canon priced the EF 14-24mm f/2.8 L much lower than the Nikkor, people will suspect it must be optically or otherwise much inferior to the Nikkor.

Wouldn't this logic also apply to Nikon bodies being cheaper than Canon

If the Canon 14-24 came in $500 less than the Nikon would there be a stream of Nikon users swapping to Canon  ;D ;D ;D

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #80 on: June 16, 2012, 07:52:54 PM »
Quote
I'm not quite sure what to do with those comparisons, with widely different settings.  Were you handheld or on a tri-pod for these?  Something(s) seems a bit off, I would say hopefully non-offensively, that this samples makes both lenses seem unimpressive (please don't take any offense to that, as none is intended).

What exactly do you mean by widely different settings? If you speak of the flare on the Canon lens -- that's simply b/c the sun had set further during the time between shots on the Nikon vs. the Canon. But sharpness is still quite easy to judge. If you're talking about my different apertures-- that was the whole point: that at f/2.8 the Nikon lens exceeds f/11 performance on the Canon. Additionally, I posted both f/2.8 lenses.

These are all taken on a tripod.

I also don't see anything unimpressive about the Nikon shots... care to clarify? The Nikon shots are pretty much sharp edge to edge!

Your shot looks good, but it doesn't speak to the edge-to-edge performance of the lens. You have continually varying distance of subject from the bottom of the frame to the top, with not much/any detail for comparison at the top (mostly just sky). My tests were designed to evaluate the flat field performance of the lens, something of interest typically to landscape photographers. And my tests are hardly showing anything surprising or new for those of who've actually compared the performance of the Nikon 14-24 against lesser lenses. For example, the guys over at 16-9.net.

Also keep in mind: often a wide angle lens can't maintain focus at infinity across the field (when you've intended to focus at infinity) because of field curvature. This'll often result in closer subjects coming in to focus around the edges if you focused the center at infinity. Therefore your image with subjects of varying distance is not indicative of the ability of the lens to focus on distant landscapes across the field-of-view.

Also remember that a 12MP camera will not show defects as well as a 22MP camera, or 36MP, etc.

Specifically there is a very large difference in shutter speeds between your two comparisons, any little movement or instability on your Canon side of testing could easily impact sharpness to a much larger extent then the Nikon side of the test (I see that all of the cars have motion blur on the Canon test which had a much slower shutter.  That's why I asked if you were handheld or not.  Also there seems to be a lack of clarity in detail to an extent that I find uncharacteristic of the 16-35 from my own personal use.

I suspect perhaps in camera noise reduction as well as perhaps .jpg shooting are being used (or some other sort of in-optimal post processing), but that's just a guess.  Something about the characteristics of the pavement suggest some sort of processing/filtering going on that isn't working out too well.  I like to have Noise Reduction in camera turned off completely and shoot in RAW personally.

The Nikon shots in your test are sharper than the Canon shots, but on it's own, outside of this comparison I wouldn't call those results 'sharp'.  Chromatic aberrations are all over the shot, hampering it's sharpness to my eyes.  To me it's apparent on the street pavement details as well as the safety rail (look for reddish tints if you are having trouble seeing what I'm seeing, it's noticeable on the shadows of the safety rail and elsewhere, at least to me).  There's also a lack of contrast in fine details from this image, which comes unexpected at ISO 100.

Perhaps each lens needs to be learned and set individually to pull out it's real world strengths rather than trying to compare them in any sort of controlled or uncontrolled way just to make them compete.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 07:57:51 PM by Jettatore »

sarangiman

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #81 on: June 16, 2012, 08:22:15 PM »
Quote
Specifically there is a very large difference in shutter speeds between your two comparisons, any little movement or instability on your Canon side of testing could easily impact sharpness to a much larger extent then the Nikon side of the test

Easy to disprove... here's the center portion of that Canon f/11 image:

Full-size image here: http://cl.ly/HQcB/Canon16-35_f11_Center.jpg

Tack sharp. Which I'd expect w/ mirror lock-up, 2s delay, Gitzo 2541 carbon fiber tripod w/ RRS BH-40 ball head.

Also, note that I did post the Canon f/2.8 shot (1/250s) side-by-side w/ the Nikon f/2.8 shot (1/320s). Hope you're not trying to say that 1/3EV longer shutter speed screwed over the Canon shot ;)

Quote
Also there seems to be a lack of clarity in detail to an extent that I find uncharacteristic of the 16-35 from my own personal use.

As I mentioned, that's due to flare b/c I was shooting into the sun. And these are converted RAWs w/ no tone curve applied.

Quote
I suspect perhaps in camera noise reduction as well as perhaps .jpg shooting are being used

Absolutely not. All shots are RAW & processed in exactly the same manner. Shot on the same body (5D Mark III). The only thing uncontrolled about this test is the flare. I could've redone the comparison on a flat cloudy day like I usually do for my tests (not hard to find in Seattle!), but the results were so overwhelmingly obvious that I didn't bother.

Quote
The Nikon shots in your test are sharper than the Canon shots, but on it's own, outside of this comparison I wouldn't call those results 'sharp'.  Chromatic aberrations are all over the shot, hampering it's sharpness to my eyes.

CA is rather easily removed in LR/ACR. And all my Nikon shots are at f/2.8. CA cleans up by f/5.6. No extra sharpening applied besides the default ACR setting of 25. Out of curiosity, are you used to seeing pixel-level detail on 21-22MP RAW files, or have you only worked w/ the 12MP 5D? Because those examples are pretty tack sharp, especially for edges, at f/2.8, with no extra sharpening applied... I could show you the center, which is even better, but that's not the point of this comparison.

Quote
There's also a lack of contrast in fine details from this image, which comes unexpected at ISO 100.
As for lack of contrast, these are RAW files, with no contrast adjustments done at all & just default ACR sharpening (25) applied, so, naturally they are flat.

Quote
Perhaps each lens needs to be learned and set individually to pull out it's real world strengths rather than trying to compare them in any sort of controlled or uncontrolled way just to make them compete.

I wanted an unbiased test of sharpness between these two lenses, & that's all this test was. No more, no less. To me, the results speak for themselves, and *everything* was controlled for save for the flare due to the sun setting. If I were publishing this as a review, yes, I would've redone the shots on a cloudy day where the lighting was not an added variable.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 08:39:03 PM by sarangiman »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #81 on: June 16, 2012, 08:22:15 PM »

sarangiman

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #82 on: June 16, 2012, 08:36:30 PM »
BTW, feel free to PM me if you want links to the original RAW files.

Woody

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 997
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #83 on: June 16, 2012, 08:43:15 PM »
This sort of performance is something Canon UWA zoom users can only dream of. Let's hope Canon fixes that w/ this rumored 14-24.

The fact that Canon EF-S 10-22 beats the c**p out of Nikon DX 10-24 gives us some hope that Canon will be able to pull off some magic with this rumored 14-24. Canon's EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and recent EF 24-70 f/2.8 II further prove they are capable of great things.

The only issue as far as I can tell is cost. :)

sarangiman

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #84 on: June 16, 2012, 08:52:35 PM »
Quote
The fact that Canon EF-S 10-22 beats the c**p out of Nikon DX 10-24 gives us some hope that Canon will be able to pull off some magic with this rumored 14-24. Canon's EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and recent EF 24-70 f/2.8 II further prove they are capable of great things.

Haven't tried those lenses but I suppose I should mention that I've been quite happy w/ the edge-to-edge performance of my 24-70L (version I). The 70-200 f/2.8L II is stunning. I'm not saying that Canon is incapable of making amazing lenses; that'd be an irresponsible blanket statement. I'm just staying that their 16-35 & 17-40 lenses do not stack up against the competition. Not even close.

Oh, and please, please start using 9-blade apertures in all your lenses Canon.

D_Rochat

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #85 on: June 16, 2012, 08:53:43 PM »
I have no doubt that if Canon produces this lens, it will be nothing short of amazing. I just wonder how long it would be before we see something like this hit the stores.

For using the Nikkor 14-24 on a Canon, is it only af that you lose?

sarangiman

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #86 on: June 16, 2012, 08:59:04 PM »
Quote
For using the Nikkor 14-24 on a Canon, is it only af that you lose?

You also have to manually adjust aperture. Metering works pretty reliably for well-lit scenes, but starts to fail in dim lighting or at small apertures (both of which result in less light reaching the exposure sensor, which is why it starts to fail... you have to be within the linear operating range of the meter for it to function properly).

I've found that metering is more reliable in Live View mode, but also fails at very small apertures or when the lighting is extremely dim. That being said, I haven't found this to be a huge issue b/c we're not shooting film here :) You can re-evaluate the exposure after you've taken the shot!

The Novoflex adapter that allows you to control the aperture will also set you back ~$250 or so.

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2012, 09:44:27 PM »
sarangiman,

This is getting too complicated for my tastes so I won't fully respond.  Thank you for the clarifications/corrections on your settings, though I don't feel that even the center Canon shot you posted is tack sharp or any representation of what the lens is capable of, I have this lingering hunch that somethings altogether are off in both images...  I am used to both 18MP crop body shots and 12MP full frame shots.  I would like to see the RAW file of the Canon if you wouldn't mind sending it.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2012, 09:44:27 PM »

sarangiman

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #88 on: June 16, 2012, 09:57:04 PM »
Quote
though I don't feel that even the center Canon shot you posted is tack sharp or any representation of what the lens is capable of, I have this lingering hunch that somethings altogether are off in both images...

Yeah I'm not sure how to respond at this point either, since that center crop is pretty much as sharp as I see for any lens at an ACR sharpening setting of 25 (default). I have a feeling you're not liking it b/c of the flare... but I just sent you a PM w/ both RAW files, so you can sharpen & adjust contrast to your heart's content :)

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #89 on: June 16, 2012, 10:02:54 PM »
Thank you sarangiman, cheers.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #89 on: June 16, 2012, 10:02:54 PM »