I cannot speak from own experience to the performance of the lenses mentioned. Most likely all of them are "more than good enough", including "professional use". But I have also seen many of the comparison tests and come to mostly the same conclusions as messus, as far as relative performance of the Canon L's he specifically mentioned compared to other manufacturers lenses is concerned. Considering the pprices of these Canon L lenses, they ought to be not only have goood build quality and good AF but also 100% competitive IQ.
And compared to the Nikon 14-24 which even today still beats almost any prime lens in its range, the Canon 16-35 II is simply "sub-par". I consider it a shame for Canon and a pity for its customers, that they are not able to come up with fully competitive or better (!) L lenses. No Canon L lens should not be beaten in the IQ department by a "lowly" Samyang . Not ever.
Quite to the contrary. Their gear was NOT lowly. It was the most advanced, very best and definitely not cheap COMPACT + LIGHT, ROBUST and FAST-OPERABLE camera gear available of their times.
http://www.odedwagen.com/2013/01/masters-of-photography-interview-with-steve-mccurry
1984, Afghanistan: McCurry used a Nikon FM2 (launched only in 1982) + Nikkor 105/2.5 (presumably the AI-S version launched in 1981) http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105f25.htm
HCB used Leica M from the 30ies onward.
Both chose the smallest, IQ-wise fully competent gear available at their time. Not lowly, inexpensive, marketing-crippled gear.
In November 2013 the equivalent would be Sony's A7R with matching Zeiss ZE 55/2.8 and 35/2.8 prime lenses. While far less expensive than a Canon 1D X or D4 plus clunky f/2.8 zooms, the A7R is a very compact system, delivering better IQ than any of these DSLR behemoths.
Unless one needs to or wants to shoot long tele lenses. But then please, don't quote HCB (50mm lens) or McCurry (of whom I do not know a single image taken at more than 135mm focal length).
And compared to the Nikon 14-24 which even today still beats almost any prime lens in its range, the Canon 16-35 II is simply "sub-par". I consider it a shame for Canon and a pity for its customers, that they are not able to come up with fully competitive or better (!) L lenses. No Canon L lens should not be beaten in the IQ department by a "lowly" Samyang . Not ever.
GMCPhotographics said:
Quite to the contrary. Their gear was NOT lowly. It was the most advanced, very best and definitely not cheap COMPACT + LIGHT, ROBUST and FAST-OPERABLE camera gear available of their times.
http://www.odedwagen.com/2013/01/masters-of-photography-interview-with-steve-mccurry
1984, Afghanistan: McCurry used a Nikon FM2 (launched only in 1982) + Nikkor 105/2.5 (presumably the AI-S version launched in 1981) http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105f25.htm
HCB used Leica M from the 30ies onward.
Both chose the smallest, IQ-wise fully competent gear available at their time. Not lowly, inexpensive, marketing-crippled gear.
In November 2013 the equivalent would be Sony's A7R with matching Zeiss ZE 55/2.8 and 35/2.8 prime lenses. While far less expensive than a Canon 1D X or D4 plus clunky f/2.8 zooms, the A7R is a very compact system, delivering better IQ than any of these DSLR behemoths.
Unless one needs to or wants to shoot long tele lenses. But then please, don't quote HCB (50mm lens) or McCurry (of whom I do not know a single image taken at more than 135mm focal length).
Upvote
0
