[quote name='Sylvain' timestamp='1290078761' post='4242']
Oh, was this post just a rant?
[/quote]
No its quite true what you say. Some of the LL article are incredibly informative. However if you contact Reichmann directly to give feedback its ignored. If you do it through the forum you get into business with Schewe, even when you are constructive and merley point out room for improvement. Schewe probably is the rudest guy out there on the net. YOu dare to critizise Reichmann, LL or any author writing for them? You will be hacked to death by Mr Schwee and his consorts with apparent sanction of Mr Reichmannwho who stays out of the discussion if his good friend SChewe looses his temper and manners on the LL forum. Seems to me those two would-be gurus see themselves as the holy duet, who cannot be wrong.
bryan conner
Unregistered
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1290101340' post='4253']
Seems to me those two would-be gurus see themselves as the holy duet, who cannot be wrong.
[/quote]
I agree 100%. And, it is a real shame that these two exhibit this attitude in public...especially Schewe, because he is a very talented and knowledgeable person who could be more of a leader and a very productive part of the photographic world.
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
8
Hi Serkan,
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1290080757' post='4245']
It might be correct that Canon has made some impressive wide angles, but it seems that these two are not the cases <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />... Despite the fact that comparison across the systems (+ comparison of primes and zooms regarding the IQ on the edges) is always dangerous, I have to say that they're both a tad softer than the 14-24mm (and 14mm Canon has a heavy CAs even at higher f-stops). [/quote]
Did you actually ever shoot with any of these? I've shot a Nikkor 14-24 on a 5D II with G-EOS adapter for about 4 months, before I had a TS-E 17L, and although the Nikkor is very good, it is not as good as the 17L, at least not based on the specimens I owned myself (still own 17L). I also shot the ZE 21, and took a few shots with the ZE 18.
Sorry to say, but IMO the 17L beats them all. It is sharper in the corners then any of the others. That's unshifted.
However, having said all that, it doesn't really matter. What does matter, IMO, is the way these lenses render, and how each individual, i.e., the photographer, likes the end results with these lenses. The Nikkor 14-24, ZE 21 and TS-E 17L are all in class by themselves, th eZE 18 is a little less, still very good however. Peopel tend to forget that anything scoring "good" in the MTF tests here, really is an excellent lens, and it is all up to the photographer to get the results. Sharpness is really only a minor part, even if it does help when printing large. The most important parts are vision, composition, and PP.
Quote:Anyway, this is a "Pentax" thread and I don't want to spoil it...<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Too late! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Quote:Kind regards,
Serkan
Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
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 ....
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1290107802' post='4256']
Did you actually ever shoot with any of these? I've shot a Nikkor 14-24 on a 5D II with G-EOS adapter for about 4 months, before I had a TS-E 17L, and although the Nikkor is very good, it is not as good as the 17L, at least not based on the specimens I owned myself (still own 17L). I also shot the ZE 21, and took a few shots with the ZE 18.
[/quote]
Well if you say so... I did not have the chance to try both of them on the same body. OTOH, the test images on that link are very controversial I must say.
Regards,
Serkan
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1290117835' post='4257']
Well if you say so... I did not have the chance to try both of them on the same body. OTOH, the test images on that link are very controversial I must say.
Regards,
Serkan
[/quote]
Useless, yes (very useless part of that website). Controversial, why?
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1290122079' post='4258']
Useless, yes (very useless part of that website). Controversial, why?
[/quote]
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1290122079' post='4258']
Useless, yes (very useless part of that website). Controversial, why?
[/quote]
Because what I see is: At center they're almost the same (not a big surprise); on mid-frame 14-24mm seems to be better (in terms of acquity and contrast); and on the corner 17mm is very slightly softer. I checked the Nikon @ 16mm, an both at f/5.6. OTOH Wim says that he tried both on the same body and and Canon is better on the corners. So, I know Wim better than that site... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> That's why...
Regards,
Serkan
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
8
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1290265575' post='4283']
Because what I see is: At center they're almost the same (not a big surprise); on mid-frame 14-24mm seems to be better (in terms of acquity and contrast); and on the corner 17mm is very slightly softer. I checked the Nikon @ 16mm, an both at f/5.6. OTOH Wim says that he tried both on the same body and and Canon is better on the corners. So, I know Wim better than that site... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> That's why...
Regards,
Serkan
[/quote]
<ROFL>
I know a few guys who have shot both TS-E 17 and Nikkor 14-24, or TS-E 17 and ZE 21, and they all have settled on the TS-E 17 - it just does better under real life shooting circumstances. And who am I to contradict (especially since I share the experience <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />).
However, they all say that this lens just performs, and is sharper than the tests out there seem to indicate (especially in the corners). Furthermore, flare resistance is incredible for a lens this wide, and it renders very, very nicely indeed.
I just love it - and I have it with me whenever I have the camera with me <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 ....
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1290107802' post='4256']
Did you actually ever shoot with any of these? I've shot a Nikkor 14-24 on a 5D II with G-EOS adapter for about 4 months, before I had a TS-E 17L, and although the Nikkor is very good, it is not as good as the 17L, at least not based on the specimens I owned myself (still own 17L). I also shot the ZE 21, and took a few shots with the ZE 18.
Sorry to say, but IMO the 17L beats them all. It is sharper in the corners then any of the others. That's unshifted.
[/quote]
So you're saying that an unshifted f/4 TS-prime is sharper in the corners than an f/2.8 zoom? Now that's hardly surprising, is it? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
8
11-21-2010, 08:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2010, 08:29 AM by wim.)
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1290325141' post='4294']
So you're saying that an unshifted f/4 TS-prime is sharper in the corners than an f/2.8 zoom? Now that's hardly surprising, is it? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[/quote]
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Considering that in reality it is an UWA medium format lens based on its image circle, and way wider than anything else out there with a a similar image circle, it is actually very surprising. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
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 ....
|
