To understand what you're reading on 16-9.net lens tests you first have
to read <http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/compatible.html> Canyon wide
angle performance on full frame digital bodies has a deservedly bad
reputation. The author is pursuing the holy grail. He's trying to find
the best lens (including a particular sample of same) for his 1DsII at
each of several wide angle focal lengths. I think you'll find that he
doesn't much care about other's tests of the same lens because he finds
lots of sample variation. The 24/1.4 Canon that's declared the final
winner in his 24mm test is only the winner because it's a good sample.
In general, his comment about the quality of Canon lenses below 35mm on
full frame bodies is that they're only usable as paperweights.
You have to understand that the link Mike posted is only the final
runoff of a larger set of lenses that he tested for 24mm performance.
The Nikon 24/2.8 was tested and found wanting. The Canon 24/2.8 was not
tested but the 24/2 was... and also found wanting. While a good prime
would normally be expected to outperform a zoom he tests zooms since the
zoom could be better at a particular focal length. And that's what he's
looking for.
If you go to the following link
<http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/index.html>
you'll find that the following set of lenses were previously tested. In
addition you'll find that the Oly 24/f2 was previously determined to be
less able than the 2.8. A number of other lenses were also previously
eliminated for similar reasons.
> Group A: 24mm Zoom Lenses
Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 (10)
Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 (12)
Leica 21-35mm (1)
> Group B: 24mm Fast Lenses
Nikon 24mm f2 (6)
Sigma 24mm f1.8 EX (7)
Pentax 24mm f2 FA (3)
Canon 24mm f.4 L (2)
> Group C: 24mm Regular Lenses
Canon 24mm f2.8 (5)
Yashica 24mm f2.8 (9)
Sigma 24mm f2.8 (11)
Pentax 24mm f2.8 SMC A (8)
Olympus 24mm f2.8 (4)
Chuck Norcutt
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I don't get this. A 24/1.4 v. 24/2.8 v. a fast zoom? Why it is
> shocking that lenses with more elements or larger apertures might
> have more flare. Wow. What a revelation.
>
> Why not the Canon 24/2.8 and the Nikon 24/2.8? Even aside from the
> questionable test results and the seeming disconnect between what he
> says and what is on the screen, would not the Oly 2.8 do well against
> the 11-22/2.8-4 and a faster version if it existed?
>
> On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:33 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> OK, it is a play-off day but thought this would be of more interest.
>> It is for me, though probably should not admit that in New England.
>> Wonder about adapter variability as well as sample variation in the
>> lenses.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/final/24mm_final1.html
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|