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

justin_time

Senior Member
Messages
1,111
Solutions
2
Reaction score
627
Location
UK
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
 

Attachments

  • 3146712.jpg
    3146712.jpg
    91.8 KB · Views: 0
  • 3146715.jpg
    3146715.jpg
    95.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 3146713.jpg
    3146713.jpg
    91.9 KB · Views: 0
  • 3146714.jpg
    3146714.jpg
    83.6 KB · Views: 0
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
 

Attachments

  • 3146721.jpg
    3146721.jpg
    95 KB · Views: 0
  • 3146719.jpg
    3146719.jpg
    90.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 3146720.jpg
    3146720.jpg
    85.9 KB · Views: 0
  • 3146718.jpg
    3146718.jpg
    87.5 KB · Views: 0
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.
 
Thanks for posting. Can you comment on the processing? If these are OOC JPEGs, was lens modulation enabled?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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

centre





top left

top left



bottom left

bottom left



bottom right

bottom right



top right

top right





--
justin_time
 
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.
 
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.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top