06-23-2010, 08:45 AM
[quote name='genotypewriter' date='23 June 2010 - 04:28 AM' timestamp='1277260119' post='657']
These were all shot with the 24L MkI wide open:
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/tags/melbourneinternationalmotorshow/"]http://www.flickr.co...ionalmotorshow/[/url]
Wide open, the Mk I that I had was a hair sharper than two 24L IIs (incl. my new one) I compared it to. In the corners, the 24L II was a bit better.
From the testing that I did, the 24L MkI had very slightly less field curvature than the two 24L IIs I compared it to. I thought of the added curvature as a compromise they made in Mk II to get the added sharpness. Again, I never had trouble with field curvatures in real world shooting. If anything, it makes things interesting. I think the field curvature bashing should be limited rangefinder lenses (where you have no other option other than to focus in the center and recompose) and telescopes for precision astro work.
I agree about AF... I think that was the biggest improvement. Also found the bokeh being a bit smoother.
I don't think there are any other options at all, to be honest! The two wide Summiluxes are far worse than the N or the C from what I've seen.
GTW
[/quote]
For any other options, I was thinking of having custom created lenses - an expensive option.
Regarding wide open sharpness: I do believe my copy of the II is slightly sharper than the Mk I copy I had, but that may also be influenced to aforementioned AF problems. Field curvature with the II certainly is way less than with the Mk I: for some brainstorm sessions at work I did photograph white boards in order to have a record of what was scribbled down, and I could get virtually all of the board sharp in focus, frame filling, even at F/1.4. That really amazed me.
P.S.: great photographs! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Kind regards, Wim
These were all shot with the 24L MkI wide open:
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/tags/melbourneinternationalmotorshow/"]http://www.flickr.co...ionalmotorshow/[/url]
Wide open, the Mk I that I had was a hair sharper than two 24L IIs (incl. my new one) I compared it to. In the corners, the 24L II was a bit better.
From the testing that I did, the 24L MkI had very slightly less field curvature than the two 24L IIs I compared it to. I thought of the added curvature as a compromise they made in Mk II to get the added sharpness. Again, I never had trouble with field curvatures in real world shooting. If anything, it makes things interesting. I think the field curvature bashing should be limited rangefinder lenses (where you have no other option other than to focus in the center and recompose) and telescopes for precision astro work.
I agree about AF... I think that was the biggest improvement. Also found the bokeh being a bit smoother.
I don't think there are any other options at all, to be honest! The two wide Summiluxes are far worse than the N or the C from what I've seen.
GTW
[/quote]
For any other options, I was thinking of having custom created lenses - an expensive option.
Regarding wide open sharpness: I do believe my copy of the II is slightly sharper than the Mk I copy I had, but that may also be influenced to aforementioned AF problems. Field curvature with the II certainly is way less than with the Mk I: for some brainstorm sessions at work I did photograph white boards in order to have a record of what was scribbled down, and I could get virtually all of the board sharp in focus, frame filling, even at F/1.4. That really amazed me.
P.S.: great photographs! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.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 ....
