Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: canon 24TS-E lenses compared with rodenstock 35HR  (Read 22535 times)
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131


WWW
« on: December 07, 2009, 04:21:20 PM »
ReplyReply

so i went on this evening testing this time  the 24TSE under tungsten light, which in this case wasn't an easy light source  because several little lamps are directly shining in the lens. anyway, its a situation which i am faced very often in a similar way, esp if shooting interiors at night.

i will go on in the next days comparing the 24tse together with the 1,4extender  against the rodenstock digital 45mm lens and the 45tse against the 60HR.

to read the tests together i post here the links to the other lens tests:
23HR against the 17TS-E:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39838


because the 24tse is wider than its equivalent 35HR lens  ( on a mf sensor with 36x48mm ) i tested also the 28HR against it,
which is again slightly wider than the 24tse, but if stitched together to the max. frame size the resulting fov is quite similar.

what surprise with the 28HR because its behavior in terms of flare isn't very nice  under the light source i had here.
in practice i never felt this being  a problem, but of course i never have shot side by side with various lenses comparing them directly.
normally the 28HR is a quite a nice piece of glass, but here it showed some strong internal reflections.
not ot  misshape the impression of this lens i dont want to post it, its a very unusal behavor the lens showed at this setting.
i will give it another chance in another moment, its not fair to pick up such unfavorable setting, if this is a singular situation, and so it appears to me.

the 35hr reacted way better but still behind the 24tse in terms of flare i.m.o.
i exposed both images to the extreme upper limit, just so that there has remained a bit of texture in the white tilings in front of the cam.
the shots with the HR lenses show more detail, but noise seems to be better with the canon and especially its no- flare behavior is fantastic.
the mf sensor seems to render better zones with very lo contrast, as the blue wood at the roof.
i saw this in the outside shots too, esp. in the grass area, although not sure if there wasn't a bit of back-focus too in the game on the canon shot.
i prefer the colors of the e75, they are more "real" but most likely its a question of tweaking the colors either in a profile or in photoshop.

with the 35HR appeared a problem i never was concient: the extreme upper left edge is unsharp. i have to check which caused this.
all three other edges are ok, so it could be sth. in the lens which isn't aligned very well. sh.....


to show the possible image circle i shifted all three lenses as much as possible up and down and combined them in ps. to one shot.
the canon would have if stitched in that way app. 47 mp. the HR shots with the e75   53mp.   not a big difference, the reason for such small difference
is caused by the same shift way of both lenses but the slightly smaller pixel size of the canon.
both shots were taken with f11 and tethered to my macbookpro.
i shot with 1,6 / 3 / 6 seconds and selected for both the 3 second expsure.
both programs were stable, except eXposure 7 crashed one time ( in app. 1 hour of work ) for unknown reasons.
i prefer the tethering of the canon for its bright big preview which makes focussing quiet easy and perfect,
the live view of the e75lv is a big help compared if it wouldnt be implemented,
but under lo light conditions you cant stop down the lens to focus correctly because contrast for the live view
gets to lo.

i marked the original frame size from a unstitched unshifted single shot red.
here we go: first image is the canon, than the sinar both images are app. 50% of their original size, the crops are 100% .

[attachment=18472:3_24tse_stitched.jpg]



[attachment=18473:3_35HR_stitched.jpg]

and now some 100% crops.
upper image always is the canon, image at bottom the e75.

[attachment=18474:3_24tse_crop1.jpg]

[attachment=18475:3_24tse_crop2.jpg]

[attachment=18476:3_24tse_crop3.jpg]

[attachment=18477:3_24tse_crop4.jpg]
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 04:24:04 PM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2009, 04:37:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Rainer, your findings are really interessting and very valuable - thanks a lot for sharing!
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2009, 04:41:06 PM »
ReplyReply

DELETED
« Last Edit: February 16, 2010, 09:45:54 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2009, 04:44:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
That's an impressive copy of the !7 you have there. I hope I get as lucky when I get around to buying one.
its this time the 24tse mk2 ...  
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2009, 04:52:10 PM »
ReplyReply

These results are in line with what I get from my 24 tse mkII.

However I've never seen that kind of flare with my 35XL
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2009, 05:16:29 PM »
ReplyReply

My new 24 is a significant improvement over the old one....but also ..... on a related note. Rainer mentioned in a earlier thread that the new 24T/S worked well with the Canon EX 1.4xII extender (which I already owned). Indeed it does by my tests. It  creates, a what, 32mm lens? I have always carried an Olympus 35 PC with a Canon lens mount to cover that mid range between the 24 and 45. The Olympus is a pretty good little lens, but the Canon 24 T/S II with the extender surpasses it in terms of resolution, CA and shift range. So I will no longer carry my little Olympus 35PC, but use the extender on the new 24 instead. Sweet.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 05:19:16 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
asf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 506


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2009, 05:23:31 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, I'm nearly jealous. When I tested the 24ts-e mkII+1.4 it was pretty bad ... If one of you can post your successes I'm heading out to try a new 1.4x (not that I don't take your word for it).

Have they improved the 1.4x in some way recently? Is there a mkII? Perhaps I tested an earlier version?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 05:37:19 PM by asf » Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2009, 05:33:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes  this is the newish EF 1.4x II extender on the new 24 T/S II compared to a hand picked (best of 4 mint that I bought and tested) Olympus 35 T/S which is a tight little lens.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 05:36:28 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
BJNY
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1112


« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2009, 05:46:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Does the image circle diminish  when used with the 1.4x?
Logged

Guillermo
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2009, 05:51:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJNY
Does the image circle diminish  when used with the 1.4x?

I don't know. You need less coverage at longer focal lengths. All I know is there is absolutely 0 vignetting or falloff at full shift when used on the 24 T/S II. I have to say when Rainer mentioned it in a previous thread and said it worked well, you could have knocked me over with a feather. I would never have considered it as a possibility.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 05:55:13 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2009, 06:21:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Kirk Gittings
I don't know. You need less coverage at longer focal lengths. All I know is there is absolutely 0 vignetting or falloff at full shift when used on the 24 T/S II. I have to say when Rainer mentioned it in a previous thread and said it worked well, you could have knocked me over with a feather. I would never have considered it as a possibility.

coverage is enough ..
the 1,4 ext adds barrel distortion, but because there is no asp. element its a simple rounded barreling which is also symmetric, because the extender does not move its position. its with photoshop tools easy to 100% correctable.
sharpness and CA still is excellent together with the 24ts-e. not so with the 45ts-e. there the results are poor if used together with the extender. havent tried with the 17ts-e cause i use in this case the 24 if i need the 17 a bit longer.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2009, 07:20:26 PM »
ReplyReply

i believe the second series of Canon extenders is better, but variable - just got mine back from Canon with fairly bad focus improved (with micro adjust not too big an issue or with MF lenses).

i find 90 ts quite happy with the 1.4x  - it seems to me that extenders work better with simpler lens designs.  yes, the barrel distortion is easy to correct, the problem that i find is serious loss of sharpness and CA at the edges, but not at all bad on the 90 ts
Logged
Derryck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2009, 07:27:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for both comparisons Rainer. I was going to buy a second flash pack and a couple of heads next month but I think I'll now spend that money upgrading my 24 TS and also get the 17 TS. Now I've got to find some sucker willing to purchase my old 24 TS.
Logged

JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 728



« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2009, 11:09:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting comparison, thanks.  Here I go again talking about stretching, but looking at the images side by side, it appears that the Rod 35mm stretches the images much less then the Canon 24 mm (I would dare say no stretching what so ever but I have not seen the space in person) while getting pretty much the same FOV in a single shot.
Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 728



« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2009, 11:13:12 PM »
ReplyReply

As a matter of fact, if those red lines are placed right, the Rod 35 has a wider FOV in the vertical in a single shot with little or no stretching.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 11:14:16 PM by JoeKitchen » Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
aaronleitz
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56


« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2009, 12:45:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JoeKitchen
Very interesting comparison, thanks.  Here I go again talking about stretching, but looking at the images side by side, it appears that the Rod 35mm stretches the images much less then the Canon 24 mm (I would dare say no stretching what so ever but I have not seen the space in person) while getting pretty much the same FOV in a single shot.

Physically impossible. Please explain.
Logged

rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1131


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2009, 04:01:38 AM »
ReplyReply

i printed the images yesterday at various sizes and the findings are  i.m.o. quite interesting, and a bit surprising to me
because its nor the resolution which i see important in the image impression.
 
in terms of resolution there is hardly to see any difference up to A1.
at A0 ( 80 x 120cm ) the sinar starts to resolve the fine letters in the kitchen furnitures a bit better,
at 160x220cm this remains the same, but  this little more in small detail does not look important at all to the overall image impression, please have the size of the image in mind. this is not inviting to come closer than 30 - 50cm and even if youd o its not so interesting if you can read all the letters a bit better or a bit less, and its really a bit better only.

what seems more important to the image impression is the better resolving capacitie of the sinar in lo contrast zones ,
as the red tray with the flowers on the left side or the bluish wood bars at the ceiling.
here the canon looked with the conversion you see here  more undefined and washed out, meanwhile the sinar resolves very good this zones.
this is important for the overall impression of the images, because this are larger zones whcih are clearly visible from any viewing distance.

anyway, after seeing the prints i converted the canon file again looking esp. at the contrast and optimizing this in LL3.
difference much less now in the A0 prints, if any.
there is no more difference in quality at this size which i could valuate as important, the little bit more detail in the sinar shots does not bring advantage in the print impression for my taste here.

its weird. so many variables ... its really not easy.
funny too, i tried RPP ( Raw PhotoProcessor ) ,  it delivered better contrast with the canon but unusable results with the small red led lights you see in the center in the watch. they were not more readable ...
btw. canons DPP delivers less sharp and detailled results as LL3.

 .... i will go on with my testings, now i smelled blood.

i will check it out how the two systems behave for  landscape stuff, esp. for rendering of grass and fine details with lo contrast.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 05:57:51 AM by rainer_v » Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
JoeKitchen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 728



« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2009, 08:22:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaronleitz
Physically impossible. Please explain.
Open both images and look at them side by side, look at the rafters in the roof.  In the Canon image there appears to be more depth in the rafters then in the Sinar image.  We are not dealing with reality here, but how each lens precieves reality, so yes, it is physically possible since each lens will be different.  

Look at how the chandelier is rendered in each image, notice how the oven seems further away in the Canon, the doorway seems more stretched in the Canon.  

Also from reading these post, it also appears that Rodenstock's quality control and precision is much better then Canon's.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 08:30:06 AM by JoeKitchen » Logged

Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
"Try not to be just better than your rivals and contemporaries, try to be better than yourself."  William Faulkner
brianc1959
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2009, 08:43:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting comparisons - thank you for taking the time to present all this.  I can't help wondering whether the Canon shots would be significantly improved if the AA filter were removed from the camera.
Logged
brianc1959
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2009, 08:49:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JoeKitchen
Also from reading these post, it also appears that Rodenstock's quality control and precision is much better then Canon's.

Really?!  As the OP states, the Rodenstock lens shows evidence of internal misalignment (upper left hand corner), whereas the Canon does not.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad