January 20, 2018, 10:17:51 PM

Author Topic: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]  (Read 83109 times)

Etienne

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1141
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #90 on: June 17, 2012, 12:44:49 AM »
Thank you sarangiman, cheers.

Good god ... you guys can go on forever analysing one photo ...

... there are a ton of reviews on both of these lenses, much more in depth than this one photo taken at different settings can ever provide.

Go to photozone.de for a starter.

It's no secret that the Nikon is sharper than the Canon. But it also flares more easily, it's heavier, more expensive and it doesn't go to 35 mm. The Canon is cheaper, lighter and more versatile.

Pick your weapon and get to work.

Otherwise you'll have to wait for the Canon to see how it performs.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #90 on: June 17, 2012, 12:44:49 AM »

sarangiman

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #91 on: June 17, 2012, 01:01:47 AM »
Quote
... there are a ton of reviews on both of these lenses, much more in depth than this one photo taken at different settings can ever provide.

How were my photos taken 'at different settings'?

Quote
Go to photozone.de for a starter.

Yup, photozone's numbers are great, & I'm a firm believer in quantitation. But side-by-side images can sometimes tell you what those numbers mean in your imaging system. Which is why I performed the test on my own to begin with. It's just one way of representing the data, & was particularly helpful to me anyway.

Radiating

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #92 on: June 17, 2012, 04:09:44 AM »
This would be a seriously amazing lens to have from Canon.

Combine that with releases of a 35mm 1.4L + 50mm 1.4L & 135mm 1.8 L IS and I would be totally content.

aznable

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #93 on: June 17, 2012, 04:57:39 AM »

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. :)

and it's beaten by tokina and sigma latest wide angle aps-c zooms...so sigma and tokina are better than canon and nikon in order to deliver aps-c wide zooms? dont think so; it depens which are specs/target price they want to deliver to market.

when they wanted to deliver a superior 70-200 they did, i amconfident they are doing with the new 24-70 and maybe they will do with a fast wide angle zoom...of course the superior quality comes at a PRICE, but this is true for every manufacturer
Canon 1D Mark III - Canon 50D - sigma 24-70 EX DG - sigma 70-200 EX DG HSM OS - Sigma 50 Art

Ricku

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 493
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #94 on: June 17, 2012, 10:19:00 AM »
This would be a seriously amazing lens to have from Canon.

Combine that with releases of a 35mm 1.4L + 50mm 1.4L & 135mm 1.8 L IS and I would be totally content.
Yes, but 50mm 1.4L?

1.4?

dirtcastle

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #95 on: June 17, 2012, 10:35:31 AM »
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.

Even DxO is controversial.

Woody

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 998
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #96 on: June 17, 2012, 12:08:12 PM »
and it's beaten by tokina and sigma latest wide angle aps-c zooms...so sigma and tokina are better than canon and nikon in order to deliver aps-c wide zooms?

That's not my point. I am trying to repudiate the common belief that Canon is incapable of producing decent wide angle lenses.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #96 on: June 17, 2012, 12:08:12 PM »

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #97 on: June 17, 2012, 12:51:51 PM »
and it's beaten by tokina and sigma latest wide angle aps-c zooms...so sigma and tokina are better than canon and nikon in order to deliver aps-c wide zooms?

That's not my point. I am trying to repudiate the common belief that Canon is incapable of producing decent wide angle lenses.

I understand.

Try the TSE-17 and TSE-24 ....

aznable

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #98 on: June 17, 2012, 01:36:16 PM »
and it's beaten by tokina and sigma latest wide angle aps-c zooms...so sigma and tokina are better than canon and nikon in order to deliver aps-c wide zooms?

That's not my point. I am trying to repudiate the common belief that Canon is incapable of producing decent wide angle lenses.

yes i know you didnt want to say that...i tried to advance one or two step further reasons of your, in my bad english (sorry but i am italian and i am not talented for foreign languages)
Canon 1D Mark III - Canon 50D - sigma 24-70 EX DG - sigma 70-200 EX DG HSM OS - Sigma 50 Art

Radiating

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #99 on: June 17, 2012, 05:33:30 PM »
This would be a seriously amazing lens to have from Canon.

Combine that with releases of a 35mm 1.4L + 50mm 1.4L & 135mm 1.8 L IS and I would be totally content.
Yes, but 50mm 1.4L?

1.4?

Maybe a 1.3, but no manufacturer has ever been able to create a sharp 50mm lens that's faster than f/ 1.4 for full frame. Canon would be well off to lower the aperture and increase the image quality like they did from the 50mm f/1.0 L.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3779
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • My Portfolio
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #100 on: June 17, 2012, 05:43:54 PM »
This would be a seriously amazing lens to have from Canon.

Combine that with releases of a 35mm 1.4L + 50mm 1.4L & 135mm 1.8 L IS and I would be totally content.
Yes, but 50mm 1.4L?

1.4?

Maybe a 1.3, but no manufacturer has ever been able to create a sharp 50mm lens that's faster than f/ 1.4 for full frame. Canon would be well off to lower the aperture and increase the image quality like they did from the 50mm f/1.0 L.

Hmm, my 50L is tack sharp wide open. I don't believe there are any other aspherical 50mms for SLR that is sharper.

sarangiman

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 375
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #101 on: June 18, 2012, 01:04:56 AM »
Quote
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% the worst performance of the Nikon at its extremes.

Let me restate that: the best 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!

Quote
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).
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 04:01:43 PM by sarangiman »

briansquibb

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #102 on: June 18, 2012, 02:12:29 AM »
Great comparison

I wonder how visible this would be on a 30" print? Would the output from the Canon look noticably worse than the Nikon or is this going to more a factor of the body?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #102 on: June 18, 2012, 02:12:29 AM »

akiskev

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 325
    • My flickr gallery
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #103 on: June 18, 2012, 03:33:28 AM »
Great comparison

I wonder how visible this would be on a 30" print? Would the output from the Canon look noticably worse than the Nikon or is this going to more a factor of the body?
If you are closely examining the prints, then be sure that a 30" photo will be enough to tell the difference.

@saringman thanks for the comparison man. The Nikon lens is clearly superior. I don't agree with jettatore's opinion that there is a flaw in your method, because there isn't. You did what was right. I think  that you just got an "average" (or typical) 16-35 in your hands.
Flickr | Canon EOS 3 | Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi
EF 17-40mm f/4L | EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS | EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS | EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L
Zeiss 35mm f/2.4 | Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 | Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 | Zeiss 200mm f/2.8 | Zeiss 80-200 f/4

Jettatore

  • Guest
Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #104 on: June 18, 2012, 04:31:41 AM »
IRT: akiskev -Both of the pictures in Saringman's tests that he kindly posted are of an un-usable quality at a 100% viewing, either on a monitor, or on a high end print, --if not viewing close up for fine detail either full images could work but it's not a nice picture so it's a moot point.  Otherwise the 100% crop views on all of the above are unflattering at best and I would say downright unusable.  I'm sure someone will respond to the contrary, but if you think either of those images, from the Nikon or the Canon, are usable for viewing at 100% without heavy editing, then I would suggest the visual arts are not for you.  If I was going to print any such image I would make sure that the end print could never show such flaws, even if viewed close up, it would be better to see pixels or ink droplets before seeing visual flaws in the image.  So akiskev, while you don't have to agree with me, I would have to not agree with you also.  At the very least, I get my copy of the 16-35 to produce sharper results without even having to go up to f/11 and I would say from those samples, I'm not even impressed with Nikon's 14-24.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 04:35:05 AM by Jettatore »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« Reply #104 on: June 18, 2012, 04:31:41 AM »