Peak freak

Well, you must have a rare copy of the 17-40. I have had three copies, one faulty, two decentered, none very sharp, although acceptable once stopped down to about f11. My 16-35/4 is so good it was ...

Thanks Erez. That ice lake with the evening light is pretty special, great detail.

Thanks. I do get the feeling I need to be more 'aggressive' with the 10-18 and push my focusing back. However, the earlier photo of the autumn trees was focused the other side of the road, and ...

Here is what I get with my 10-18 (on the 100D), and then a comparison with the 16-35 on the 5D2 (mainly for what DOF to expect with these wide FOV's). They are all focused at about 2-3m (6-9 feet). ...

Hi, and thank you for these examples. That first one is very good. In terms of sharpness, not far off the 16-35. No way I get that kind of result with my 10-18. If I were to take a similar shot and ...

Yep, thanks for the info. I think I am just trying to decide if I have a poor copy of the 10-18, or I simply expect too much because the 16-35 is so good. A bit of both I suspect and complicated by ...

I've taken over this thread a bit, if that's a problem let me know but it is still about the gulf in performance between my ef-s 10-18 and ef 16-35 f4. Here is a typical example of my 10-18 ...

This is what I find - inconsistent performance. My lens is softer than I expected but my expectations might just be too high. However there is also a tendency for the lens to focus closer than ...

Thanks for your example. Firstly this is what the lens is good for, central sharpness and corners that don't really matter. Second, it is at 18mm. It is the 10-12mm performance that disappoints me.

Yeah, fair point. A lot of people (especially non-photographers) won't see the defects I do. However, in relation to the OP and for anyone pondering the choice (for whatever reason), in my ...

Just thought I would add to this as it might help someone if they stumble upon it like I have. I usually use a 5D2 with 16-35 f4, and have a 70-200 f4 on my 100D. I own a 10-18 for the 100D but ...

This is a practical example of potential differences in formats: I have a book of New Zealand landscapes 'Looking For The light' by Peter Latham. He mostly uses a Mamiya 645 AFD medium format ...

The biggest difference I notice is in RAW processing latitude. My 5D2 (which isn't renowned for DR) has truck load more adjustment room than my 100D which probably won't be a surprise, but my new ...

Based on graphs, the Nikon D850 and 5D4 have pretty similar noise and DR performance, with the Nikon having an advantage at ISO 64, if you are inclined to use it. What I think gets overlooked too ...

While any weather resistance is welcome, I don't think it is that big an issue for the average, enthusiast photographer. Photographing in the rain isn't that much fun, or the results that good.
I...

Good, but we are still someways off an actual image. That bit is quite interesting too, how 'they' turn analogue voltage into a digital image.

The only stuff I have on the web is my older stuff at flickr.com/photos/moapark/
It is generic landscape/adventure but because I am lucky enough to live in New Zealand, the subjects are good and my...

Most of this is crap and I am happily ignorant in saying so.
If this was my photography I wouldn't enjoy it one bit!

DPR (and others ) have 5D4 at 890g + 24-70 at 805g = 1695g. If you are going to do these comparisons you have to be accurate about it. My point is, the Sony combo can be considerably smaller and ...

I assume it has been mentioned, but I think this is a click bait comparison for a couple of reasons. The weights are wrong and the Sony lens is effectively stabilized, plus there are other ...