03-18-2012, 02:58 PM
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1332071253' post='16852']
With my pixel peeping hat firmly on, from what I saw the 14-24's lateral CA was noticeably worse when used around 14-15mm, although still at a low level. We are looking at marginal differences here anyway. The Samyang's comical distortion pretty much rules it out for me even if they practically give it away.
[/quote]
I have a slightly different experience with the 14-24 (EOS-G adapter, on Canon). However, the sharpness in the corners at the short end was similar to that of this Zeiss, maybe slightly better, but with a little more smearing.
Gimme a TS-E 17 any day... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Kind regards, Wim
With my pixel peeping hat firmly on, from what I saw the 14-24's lateral CA was noticeably worse when used around 14-15mm, although still at a low level. We are looking at marginal differences here anyway. The Samyang's comical distortion pretty much rules it out for me even if they practically give it away.
[/quote]
I have a slightly different experience with the 14-24 (EOS-G adapter, on Canon). However, the sharpness in the corners at the short end was similar to that of this Zeiss, maybe slightly better, but with a little more smearing.
Gimme a TS-E 17 any day... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
