[wim]

[quote name='genotypewriter' date='22 June 2010 - 05:19 AM' timestamp='1277176786' post='647']

There are always things to take and not to take from any review. Guys like Lloyd Chambers and Ken Rockwell are fairly heavy on opinion before objectiveness and technicality. For example, see how much fluff they write compared to the actual technical bits and results they show.



In the sorts of tests I do, I clearly show aspects that I'm comparing/measuring and emphasize on demonstrating the observations that were made so that the reader can make their own judgments. Descriptions I give are about how the tests were conducted more than personal opinion. After that, any opinions I give on what's shown is only good as anyone else's.



Plus I challenge Chambers, Rockwell or any experts to challenge me on the technicality of my tests or to repeat the tests I did and produce different results, if they can <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



I'd like to see a test on 16:9.net with the 24L II and Nikkor 24 F/1.4G included in their world class comparison <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I think I know which lens wins.



Anyway, I think the quality of these lenses is a bit of a moot point. They are both world class lenses. Personally I prefer the Canon, but that's just me. I do like this competitor thing hotting up, though, It does result in lenses beyond what we were used too, IQ-wise, and that is only a good thing AFAIAC <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[Guest]

I am wondering if there may be some truth in that everything in Nikonland is much better than Canonland. How else do we explain the near fanaticism of well known online figures such as Ken Rockwell, Lloyd Chambers etc? Are there equivalent fanatical representatives for Canon? I'm not aware of any. Also, why do well regarded magazine reviewers such as Will Cheung, professional sports photographer Rob Galbraith and wildlife photographer Ole Jorgen Liodden switch from Canon to Nikon? There can only be one explanation: all Nikon glass and cameras are better.

[wim]

[quote name='thw' date='22 June 2010 - 02:09 PM' timestamp='1277208550' post='652']

I am wondering if there may be some truth in that everything in Nikonland is much better than Canonland. How else do we explain the near fanaticism of well known online figures such as Ken Rockwell, Lloyd Chambers etc? Are there equivalent fanatical representatives for Canon? I'm not aware of any. Also, why do well regarded magazine reviewers such as Will Cheung, professional sports photographer Rob Galbraith and wildlife photographer Ole Jorgen Liodden switch from Canon to Nikon?[/quote]

Because they got an offer they could not refuse? I know that this happened to at least one of them. As to RG: he has been in a fight with Canon since the 1D Mk III AF thing, and never wanted to admit it was good enough, and with the 1D Mk IV he did a similar thing. So I guess that was to be expected.



And no, generally speaking the Canon fanboys are not as extreme as the Nikon ones, that is my experience anyway.

There can only be one explanation: all Nikon glass and cameras are better.

Yep <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Fortunately I don't need the better stuff. That's why I stay with Canon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='wim' date='22 June 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1277202799' post='649']

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



I'd like to see a test on 16:9.net with the 24L II and Nikkor 24 F/1.4G included in their world class comparison <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I think I know which lens wins.



Anyway, I think the quality of these lenses is a bit of a moot point. They are both world class lenses. Personally I prefer the Canon, but that's just me. I do like this competitor thing hotting up, though, It does result in lenses beyond what we were used too, IQ-wise, and that is only a good thing AFAIAC <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]



lol ah yes... the 16-9.net's backyard shrub test <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I liked how they were looking at different "zones" but they were never clear about where exactly they focused.



Yes, the sharpness thing becomes moot on fast lenses but I see it as an ugly thing that has to be tested to know the absolute truth <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> After being very familiar with the 24 1.4 type (I also had Mk I before Mk II became available), I can say that the far focus sharpness isn't all that useful for serious shooting because you can't isolate subjects as soon as you focus more than a few feet away and then if sharpness is also important, you can put it on a tripod and stop it down. The only time the large-aperture sharpness can help is when doing long exposures to get effects like this:

[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/3727437284/sizes/o/in/set-72157613286508755/"]See 933x1400 version[/url]



Even then, none of these lenses are capable of getting sharp corners for any real enlarged output.



So that leaves us mainly with close focusing shots. Then the DOF becomes really shallow, making it difficult to perceive sharpness under normal usage. As you can see, even when put on a tripod with everything done to ensure sharpness, you really have to view huge to see fine detail (let alone differences between two lenses). And by enlarging, you're effectively magnifying all the ugly aberrations because these ambitious lens designs have more aberrations than IQ.



For me, a 24 1.4 is a multi-purpose lens (although everyone calls it a specialised one): I love using it for travel because it does handheld low light extremely well, isolates subjects when I get close (but the bokeh isn't the best I've seen) and the 24L II in particular turns in to one of the best landscape lenses at f/8-f/11 (but not the best, compared to TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L II. I don't know how the 24G is for small apertures).



<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

[sloma_p]

I don't subscribe to Lloyd's DAP, mostly because I don't really like the way he jumps to conclusions quickly and uses very heavy words to describe problems he finds - there're some useful informations posted on his blog, just the way he writes annoys me <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



As for KR - I don't make ways to his site after he descirebed PODAs course attendees using some harmful words...



Anyway - end of OT - IF there's a chance of Markus testing this lens, it would be great, thoguh I can't see myself sepnding that kind of money on a lens this fiscal year <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[wim]

Hi Geno,

[quote name='genotypewriter' date='22 June 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1277209728' post='654']

lol ah yes... the 16-9.net's backyard shrub test <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I liked how they were looking at different "zones" but they were never clear about where exactly they focused.[/quote]

I was amazed actually, that the 24L Mk I came out tops... . It must have been really good IOW <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

Yes, the sharpness thing becomes moot on fast lenses but I see it as an ugly thing that has to be tested to know the absolute truth <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> After being very familiar with the 24 1.4 type (I also had Mk I before Mk II became available),

Same here...

I can say that the far focus sharpness isn't all that useful for serious shooting because you can't isolate subjects as soon as you focus more than a few feet away and then if sharpness is also important, you can put it on a tripod and stop it down. The only time the large-aperture sharpness can help is when doing long exposures to get effects like this:

[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/3727437284/sizes/o/in/set-72157613286508755/"]See 933x1400 version[/url]



Even then, none of these lenses are capable of getting sharp corners for any real enlarged output.

I do find it has a remarkably flat image field for a 24 mm, though, certainly much more so than the 24L Mk I. AF accuracy is also a lot better. The 24L Mk I did miss occasionally, especially close to MFD. I have no such problems with the II, and the I kept on doing that even after two calibrations.

So that leaves us mainly with close focusing shots. Then the DOF becomes really shallow, making it difficult to perceive sharpness under normal usage. As you can see, even when put on a tripod with everything done to ensure sharpness, you really have to view huge to see fine detail (let alone differences between two lenses). And by enlarging, you're effectively magnifying all the ugly aberrations because these ambitious lens designs have more aberrations than IQ.

Hey, that's an opinion <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I reckon it doesn't get much better for a fast 24, unless you are prepared to pay 10X or more as much <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

For me, a 24 1.4 is a multi-purpose lens (although everyone calls it a specialised one): I love using it for travel because it does handheld low light extremely well, isolates subjects when I get close (but the bokeh isn't the best I've seen)

Very good for a 24 mm though, if you ask me. The only things better in that FL are the TS-E 24s, both Mk I and Mk II.

and the 24L II in particular turns in to one of the best landscape lenses at f/8-f/11 (but not the best, compared to TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L II.

Yes, at the cost fo speed and AF, though, and a price increase too <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. It is indeed second best however, if you ask me <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

I don't know how the 24G is for small apertures).



<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

Neither do I, unfortunately. I have not been able to handle one yet. Looks like I need to go and visit one of my favourite retailers again <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='wim' date='23 June 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1277215858' post='656']

I was amazed actually, that the 24L Mk I came out tops... . It must have been really good IOW <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

[/quote]



These were all shot with the 24L MkI wide open:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/tags/melbourneinternationalmotorshow/



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.



[quote name='wim' date='23 June 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1277215858' post='656']

I do find it has a remarkably flat image field for a 24 mm, though, certainly much more so than the 24L Mk I. AF accuracy is also a lot better. The 24L Mk I did miss occasionally, especially close to MFD. I have no such problems with the II, and the I kept on doing that even after two calibrations.

[/quote]



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.



[quote name='wim' date='23 June 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1277215858' post='656']

Hey, that's an opinion <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I reckon it doesn't get much better for a fast 24, unless you are prepared to pay 10X or more as much <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

[/quote]



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

[wim]

[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

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='wim' date='23 June 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1277282755' post='664']

For any other options, I was thinking of having custom created lenses - an expensive option.

[/quote]



Good point. From the inquiries I've made, I guess a fast wide lens of that sort should cost around USD 40K if you get them to do the designing and the engineering. If you gave your own design it should cost probably 1/3 to a 1/2 less than that.



[quote name='wim' date='23 June 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1277282755' post='664']

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.

[/quote]



Hmm... I don't use AF when testing lenses for optics. It was again one of those full blown technical comparisons involving tripods, magnified LV, etc. The Mk I might have been very slightly sharper, if at all, only in the center. Corners went straight to the Mk II. Also when stopped down, the Mk II corners are much much cleaner in terms of CA than Mk I corners. As for the field curvature, they don't show much at close distances, most of the time. What I shot was a big wall that was around 15-20 feet away. The way I figured the Mk II had a bigger curvature is by examining the differences focus between center-focused shots and corner-focused shots. Mk II, of course, showed the biggest difference to me.



<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW