samples @ 16mm 16-55, 10-24 & 18-55

justin_time · Feb 20, 2015

16-55 arrived today. Hefty, but impressive build. I really like the aperture ring - widely spaced settings and reasonably stiff so it won't move inadvertently.

So compared the wide end with 10-24 at 16mm and 18-55 at 18mm

All 100 crops.

Centre

centre 16-55 at 2.8

centre 16-55 4.0

centre 10-24 f4.0

centre 18-55 4.0

--
justin_time

justinclayton99

Explore justinclayton99’s 974 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

justin_time · Feb 20, 2015

From edge. Focused on top left AF point, so not quite edge.

edge 16-55 f2.8

edge 16-55 f4.0

edge 10-24 f4.0

edge 18-55 f4.0

--
justin_time

justinclayton99

Explore justinclayton99’s 974 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

ptyg · Feb 20, 2015

16-55 seems to have slightly better contrast and sharpness centrally. To my eye the other two stomp it at the corner though - especially the 10-24.

georgehudetz · Feb 20, 2015

Thanks for posting. Can you comment on the processing? If these are OOC JPEGs, was lens modulation enabled?

justin_time · Feb 20, 2015

georgehudetz said:
Thanks for posting. Can you comment on the processing? If these are OOC JPEGs, was lens modulation enabled?

Pritzl · Feb 20, 2015

ptyg said:
16-55 seems to have slightly better contrast and sharpness centrally. To my eye the other two stomp it at the corner though - especially the 10-24.

Agreed and quite surprising. One would expect the wide-angle lens to have problems in the corners, esp. when it is wide open at f/4 versus the 16-55 f/2.8 already being stopped down at f/4.

Ap0ll0n · Feb 20, 2015

Pritzl said:
ptyg said:

16-55 seems to have slightly better contrast and sharpness centrally. To my eye the other two stomp it at the corner though - especially the 10-24.

Click to expand...

Agreed and quite surprising. One would expect the wide-angle lens to have problems in the corners, esp. when it is wide open at f/4 versus the 16-55 f/2.8 already being stopped down at f/4.

justin_time · Feb 20, 2015

afragisk said:
Pritzl said:

ptyg said:

16-55 seems to have slightly better contrast and sharpness centrally. To my eye the other two stomp it at the corner though - especially the 10-24.

Click to expand...

Agreed and quite surprising. One would expect the wide-angle lens to have problems in the corners, esp. when it is wide open at f/4 versus the 16-55 f/2.8 already being stopped down at f/4.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pritzl/

Click to expand...

Might be due to test variation and it would be good if these tests were done for multiple pics to establish a significant pattern. If that's the reality indeed, then the corners at 16mm do indeed look very unsharp. Though I still expect the 10-24 to outperform since that's its middle range while for the 16-55 it's the widest end (not exactly a fair comparison)..

--
Apollon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/apollonas/
http://500px.com/Apollon
Fuji XE-1&2, LX100, Canon FD 300 4L, Fuji 55-200, Fuji 56 1.2, Canon FD 50 3.5 macro, Fuji 27 2.8, Fuji 23 1.4, Zeiss 12 2.8, Rokinon II 8 2.8

It maybe my 16-55 has de-centring issue. The reason I did the test was because I read another thread that claimed 16-55 was soft at 16mm/f2.8, I looked at pictures from all corners and right looks a little better than left.

all taken with AF lock / exposure lock on.

centre

top left

bottom left

bottom right

top right

--
justin_time

justinclayton99

Explore justinclayton99’s 974 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

georgehudetz · Feb 20, 2015

justin_time said:
georgehudetz said:

Thanks for posting. Can you comment on the processing? If these are OOC JPEGs, was lens modulation enabled?

Click to expand...

georgehudetz · Feb 20, 2015

Pritzl said:
ptyg said:

16-55 seems to have slightly better contrast and sharpness centrally. To my eye the other two stomp it at the corner though - especially the 10-24.

Click to expand...

Agreed and quite surprising. One would expect the wide-angle lens to have problems in the corners, esp. when it is wide open at f/4 versus the 16-55 f/2.8 already being stopped down at f/4.

justin_time · Feb 21, 2015

georgehudetz said:
justin_time said:

georgehudetz said:

Thanks for posting. Can you comment on the processing? If these are OOC JPEGs, was lens modulation enabled?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

justin_time · Feb 21, 2015

georgehudetz said:
Pritzl said:

ptyg said:

16-55 seems to have slightly better contrast and sharpness centrally. To my eye the other two stomp it at the corner though - especially the 10-24.

Click to expand...

Agreed and quite surprising. One would expect the wide-angle lens to have problems in the corners, esp. when it is wide open at f/4 versus the 16-55 f/2.8 already being stopped down at f/4.

Click to expand...

Marco Cinnirella · Feb 21, 2015

Is it me or do none of these crops look that good? The JPEG engine seems to maybe be smearing detail in the bricks? Or it could be something about the way the DPR site displays JPEGs? My 18-55 seems way sharper than these crops would suggest, in the centre.

57even · Feb 21, 2015

No need to replace my 18-55 ;-)

georgehudetz · Feb 21, 2015

justin_time said:
They may choose to favour short, middle or long end during design.

Search

samples @ 16mm 16-55, 10-24 & 18-55

justin_time

Senior Member

justinclayton99

Attachments

justin_time

Senior Member

justinclayton99

Attachments

ptyg

Member

georgehudetz

Veteran Member

justin_time

Senior Member

Pritzl

Senior Member

Ap0ll0n

Veteran Member

justin_time

Senior Member

justinclayton99

georgehudetz

Veteran Member

georgehudetz

Veteran Member

justin_time

Senior Member

justin_time

Senior Member

Marco Cinnirella

Veteran Member

57even

Guest

georgehudetz

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts