[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1289909678' post='4200']
Ok, One more consideration:
Would a Tokina 11-16 deliver superior results on a 50d comapred to a 17-40 on a 5D mark II?
If yes this might be the way to go, since I still have the 50D as a back up and a really dont want to drag around a heavy lens like the upcoming Tokina 16-28.
[/quote]
The Tok is certainly sharper assuming the same pixel density. However, the 5D II has a much less aggressive pixel density. Take the 50D sensor and transform it to FF and you'd get a 39mp sensor - just to illustrate the difference here.
At f/4 and f/5.6 it's still an easy race in favor of the Tokina (at "17mm") but from f/8 things are quite even here when thinking of the same output format (same print size).
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1289903175' post='4197']
...
We are living in 2010 where UWA with sharp corners is almost standard.
...
I should not expect any new UWA with soft corners anymore.
[/quote]
Well, for crop that eventually is true ... but certainly not for fullframe ...
just have a look on the (recently released) Nikon 16-35/4 VR.
Rainer
One example of above mentioned lens Rainer
[url="http://www.juzaforum.com/forum-en/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17625"]Here[/url]
http://www.juzaforum.com/forum-en/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17625
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1289985943' post='4211']
One example of above mentioned lens Rainer
[url="http://www.juzaforum.com/forum-en/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17625"]Here[/url]
http://www.juzaforum.com/forum-en/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17625
[/quote]
I do not really get your post... at first it seems a post to prove what Rainer says is false (that the Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR has soft corners). But then when you look into the image parameters, one notices it was taken at f16. No one in his/her right mind could claim the Canon 17-40mm f4 L USM has soft corners at f16.
Anyway, the Canon 17-40mm f4 L USM is still a good lens, and it is not bettered by the very recent Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR. Neither lens is superb, both can be used to make superb photos (that does depend on the photographer's talent, though).
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1289985943' post='4211']
One example of above mentioned lens Rainer
[url="http://www.juzaforum.com/forum-en/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17625"]Here[/url]
http://www.juzaforum.com/forum-en/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=17625
[/quote]
I dont get your post. Can you please explain? I cant see anything in this web-sized photo.
Hello Jenbenn,
I see the huge disproportion between good images that passes the PZ forum and endless discussion that compares two almost identical thinks. E.g. e.g FF vs DX Canon vs Nikon etc etc.
Here is example is example of 5 pages long thread:
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/412-are-full-frame-advantages-disappearing/"]Novel Volume1[/url]
Honestly I’ve seen this year two good landscapes from Klaus /Peru/ and some good images from you.
It annoys me a little bit.
What I’d like to see more is discussion about
What makes one image to standup above the snapshot?
What is the optimal size? E.g How big is Mona Liza by Leonardo vs. how big is the big Mac?
I’m curious to hear what do you think?
Greetings,
Miro
PS. Back to your question.
As already knows in photography there is no wrong way. Buy what you like. What would be the most suitable for your setup, think about ergonomics and your own taste.
The pure performance seems to be almost identical.
I forget to mention the image statistics is for this year only.
I forget to mention the stunning images from backcountryskier and Michael too. They are long contributors here
Who will be next?
Send your best picture to photozone website.
Greetings,
Miro
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1290071197' post='4231']
What I’d like to see more is discussion about
What makes one image to standup above the snapshot?
What is the optimal size? E.g How big is Mona Liza by Leonardo vs. how big is the big Mac?[/quote]
This site being primarily a hardware review site does mean the forum will tend to attract discussion of equipment itself, and not artistic considerations which to a large extent is independent of hardware.
Having said that though, I probably should be less lazy and upload more <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
[quote name='miro' timestamp='1290071197' post='4231']
Hello Jenbenn,
I see the huge disproportion between good images that passes the PZ forum and endless discussion that compares two almost identical thinks. E.g. e.g FF vs DX Canon vs Nikon etc etc.
Here is example is example of 5 pages long thread:
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/412-are-full-frame-advantages-disappearing/"]Novel Volume1[/url]
Honestly I’ve seen this year two good landscapes from Klaus /Peru/ and some good images from you.
It annoys me a little bit.
What I’d like to see more is discussion about
What makes one image to standup above the snapshot?
What is the optimal size? E.g How big is Mona Liza by Leonardo vs. how big is the big Mac?
I’m curious to hear what do you think?
Greetings,
Miro
PS. Back to your question.
As already knows in photography there is no wrong way. Buy what you like. What would be the most suitable for your setup, think about ergonomics and your own taste.
The pure performance seems to be almost identical.
[/quote]
I couldnt agree more with you! Pictures are far more important and intersting than endless discussions about sharpness . I still have to confess that when buying a new lens I try to weigh which ones best, although I have achieved excellent result with lenses which have been dicounted as inferior by photozone and/or the foum people e.g. 17-85 or 28-105.
