UWA brick wall shoot out

Sigma 12-24, EF14 II, EF 16-35 II on 1Ds3.

F/16, tripod, liveview manual focus, fairly long exposures (only have time at night to do this).

Full size, non-sharpened, only WB was adjusted to floresent.

address:
http://www.pbase.com/ekwok/comparisons

--
Edwin
http://www.pbase.com/ekwok

Added one more 14 II pic at f/9, trying to see if there are differences in sharpness due to diffraction. Couldn't tell much difference myself, could you?

--
Edwin
http://www.pbase.com/ekwok

Thanks for the comparison - I think your 12-24 is better than mine at 16mm - mine gets worse as I zoom in but is quite good at 12mm - If I had the money I'd go for the 14mm. The 12-24 is one of my favorite lenses, great to see how the others compare

--

So how do everyone thinks about the 14 as compared to the 12-24?

It seems to me at 12mm the extreme corners are quite bad, but by 14mm the corners are about the same as the 14 II. Do you agree with that observation?
--
Edwin
http://www.pbase.com/ekwok

Yes, real life photos now added on the above gallery.

My 12-24 is way better than I previously thought. I must had the wrong parfocal technique before. I think I foucsed too closely before. 5 feet is just right for f/16.
--
Edwin
http://www.pbase.com/ekwok

I agree that the 14mm looks pretty much the same in the corners - I'd hold on to that 12-24 if I were you... unless you want to swap it with mine

Mine is great at 12mm but the corners fall apart quickly when you zoom in... you should see the CA at 24mm... a building in a city scape almost turns into three, one red, one black and one cyan... horrible

At 12mm I get keystone distortion that looks like blur but it's really just because the image is stretched, it only shows in some shots, mostly when things are close to the camera

--

ekwok said:

Sigma 12-24, EF14 II, EF 16-35 II on 1Ds3.

F/16, tripod, liveview manual focus, fairly long exposures (only have
time at night to do this).

Full size, non-sharpened, only WB was adjusted to floresent.

address:
http://www.pbase.com/ekwok/comparisons

Click to expand...

Thanks for the comparison. The 12-24 is a pretty good lens stopped down a bit.

--
Whoever said 'a picture is worth a thousand words' was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
http://www.modelmayhem.com/dotborg

mu55 said:

Mine is great at 12mm but the corners fall apart quickly when you
zoom in... you should see the CA at 24mm... a building in a city
scape almost turns into three, one red, one black and one cyan...
horrible

Click to expand...

Hmm, I have to do some test on the tele end tomorrow on the 12-24.

mu55 said:

At 12mm I get keystone distortion that looks like blur but it's
really just because the image is stretched, it only shows in some
shots, mostly when things are close to the camera

Click to expand...

Yes, I see that even sometimes on the 14 II corners when things are real close.

Watch out, I will be posting a D3x shot with the 14-24 in the next moment. Not the same scene unfortunately. Tell me what you guys think of that too!!

--
Edwin
http://www.pbase.com/ekwok

None of these pictures are made in a way that one can make a good judgement.

It should have been taken outdoors on a bright day were you can place some detailed and distant objects in all four corners.

Another thing: You have made the comparision where all lenses (especially the Sigma) are at their best: 14mm and f16. You should also have made some pictures on f5,6 and f8. If you want to take all your landscape photos on f16 you have to drag your tripod with you all the time.

But I can still make some conclusions:

1. Your sample of the Sigma 12-24mm is much better than mine (which was horrible).

2. The 14L is still a better lens, but also this lens is just not sharp enough. Just look at the outdoor picture: on the left side there are some cars. The trees on the left side of the cars is soft! And then you have used f16 which should have given the best results. What shutter speed did you use? Did you use mirror lock up? The 14L also have some problems with chromatic aberation.

As I said the test shots could have been better, but it is enough for me to see that Canon still haven't any UWA lenses which are good enough for the high resolution of a 21Mpixel sensor.

I have owned 3 samples of the EF 17-40L, one EF 16-35L mk.I, two 16-35L mk.II and one Sigma 12-24mm. All used on a 5D camera. I have now switched to a Nikon D3 with the very sharp Nikon AF-S 14-24/2,8G lens.

With the Nikon you have to focus and zoom the "wrong" way and i therefore thought about switching back to Canon 5D mk.II and a 14L mk.II lens. But after these pictures I have changed my mind: with the Nikon combination I will take sharper and more detailed pictures, even if the sensor is just 12Mpixels, than the Canon combination. Any time.
That is a shame. Why can't Canon make a decent UWA lens?

Finn Magne Grande said:

Another thing: You have made the comparision where all lenses
(especially the Sigma) are at their best: 14mm and f16. You should
also have made some pictures on f5,6 and f8. If you want to take all
your landscape photos on f16 you have to drag your tripod with you
all the time.

Click to expand...

I do drag my tripod with me all the time, and yes, I try to us f/16 when I can.

Finn Magne Grande said:

2. The 14L is still a better lens, but also this lens is just not
sharp enough. Just look at the outdoor picture: on the left side
there are some cars. The trees on the left side of the cars is soft!

Click to expand...

Very true!

Finn Magne Grande said:

And then you have used f16 which should have given the best results.
What shutter speed did you use? Did you use mirror lock up? The 14L
also have some problems with chromatic aberation.

Click to expand...

CA, yes. Shutter speed is about 1/80, liveview (mirror of course locked tp then.

Finn Magne Grande said:

As I said the test shots could have been better, but it is enough for
me to see that Canon still haven't any UWA lenses which are good
enough for the high resolution of a 21Mpixel sensor.
I have owned 3 samples of the EF 17-40L, one EF 16-35L mk.I, two
16-35L mk.II and one Sigma 12-24mm. All used on a 5D camera. I have
now switched to a Nikon D3 with the very sharp Nikon AF-S 14-24/2,8G
lens.
With the Nikon you have to focus and zoom the "wrong" way and i
therefore thought about switching back to Canon 5D mk.II and a 14L
mk.II lens. But after these pictures I have changed my mind: with the
Nikon combination I will take sharper and more detailed pictures,
even if the sensor is just 12Mpixels, than the Canon combination. Any
time.
That is a shame. Why can't Canon make a decent UWA lens?

Click to expand...

I don't try to make those lenses look better or otherwise, I just want to see how they compare to each other and so I can pick the best instrument that I have at my disposal. Anyway, I had been talking to a local Nikon dealer and see how much am I gonna lose in selling out and then buy the D3x, 14-24, 24-70 and the bad bad 70-200. At the moment, I think I will stay with Canon and the mediocre UWAs.

Glad to see that you enjoy your new gears.
--
Edwin
http://www.pbase.com/ekwok