Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 1Ds II Lens Test Archive  (Read 3425 times)
MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« on: November 10, 2005, 06:51:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm gradually compiling my archive of lens tests on the 1Ds and 1Ds II, doing the kind of Olympus v Zeiss v Canon tests that are hard to find elsewhere, with particular attention to wide angles in the 17-24mm range.

Your tests and contributions are welcome.

There is also an up to date list of EOS adaptor sources and compatibility information.

And who would have thought after three years of testing that the last lens standing would be a Nikon zoom? Is my AFS 17-35mm really as good as a Leica 19? I can't quite believe how good this one is myself. Please tell me if I'm doing something wrong!
Logged
lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2005, 05:55:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Some interesting tests. Keep them coming.

A bit worrying about the 17-40.

I notice you ranked the 16-35 slightly above the 17-40. Although the 16-35 MTF plots show it to be quite a bit less sharp at f8 than the 17-40.

Have you tried more than one 17-40?

Could you also add a methodology page to we can understand what you are doing better.


Lester
« Last Edit: November 13, 2005, 05:56:18 AM by lester_wareham » Logged
MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2005, 03:42:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Lester: most of the pages say something about test conditions in the small print. Most of the results are based on single sample tests, but where I have owned or tested more than one, I have adjusted the ratings accordingly to average out the samples. In the case of the Canon 17-40mm, I've used three samples, and all of them were worse than my Sigma 15-30mm from 17-28mm. Testing them one at a time is a tricky business, but running multiple sample tests is a nightmare!
Logged
MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2005, 08:27:54 AM »
ReplyReply

New tests now online: just added the Leica 21-35 v Zeiss 21mm f2.8 test, and the one I shot last week, comparing the Zeiss 18mm f4 with the Nikon AFS 17-35mm f2.8 - how insanely great is this lens??
Logged
David R. Gurtcheff
Guest
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2005, 11:54:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
New tests now online: just added the Leica 21-35 v Zeiss 21mm f2.8 test, and the one I shot last week, comparing the Zeiss 18mm f4 with the Nikon AFS 17-35mm f2.8 - how insanely great is this lens??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=51346\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark: thanks for sharing your tests. I find them interesting and valuable. Very kind of you to share all of your hard work.
Best regards
Dave G.
Logged
Julian Love
Guest
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2005, 01:19:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting tests. Thanks for sharing with us. I know people go on and on about the Zeiss 21mm, but it is extremely impressive!

If you get a chance to compare some of these lenses to the Canon 16-35 (my current WA lens) I would be very interested to see how they compare.

Julian
Logged
MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2005, 03:29:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Just now I've updated the site with a group test of the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 v Olympus 18mm v Contax Zeiss 18mm

The results make interesting viewing.

If I owned a 16-35mm L, I would take this as good news, though: better quality is available for relatively modest outlay.

And yes, the Zeiss 21mm is very special: still not hyped beyond its ability!

If you find the tests useful, please remember that the site is financed by the honour system (good old Google!) I can't abide the increasing numbers of photography sites that charge to view their tests.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2005, 02:11:20 PM by MarkWelsh » Logged
MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2005, 04:54:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Also new:

Tamron 28-75mm v Sigma 24-70mm DG v Zeiss 35mm f2.8
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad