following the former tread where MFHA posted a comparison, finally i wanted to find out for myself, at which point the canons with the recent shift lenses stands , compared to the top notch rodenstock HR lenses. i hate pixel peeping comparisons, but in this case to see clearer where are the limits, it even made sense for me to try out some motifs side by side. my conclusion is similar than MFHA`s. i find the results more closed together, i dont have so much image degradation at the outer image zones than his photo shows. i have used for all shots f11. sample variation? unfortunately it exists independent from the manufactor and also of the price point and i think its just unacceptable.
i will go on in the next days comparing the 24tse, ( also together with the 1,4extender ) against the rodenstock digital 45mm lens and the 45tse against the 60HR.
to read the tests together i post here the links to the other lens tests:
35 HR against the 24 TS-E :http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=39887
what jumped at first in my eye is how good corrected the 17tse is. better than the 23HR, although the ALPA software plugin does a very very good job in correcting shifted lenses. image shows the uncorrected image version, followed by the alpa correction.
secondly the vignetting of the 17tse is stunning, to reach similar good results with the HR lens white shadings have to be applied with the falloff correction, set at the offset point in eXposure of 50%.
i did not postad a comparison of the sharpness of the 17tse to the 23HR at the left upper extreme corner, cause the result would be misleading. i shifted the 23HR a bit over its image circle and this caused to a degraded image at the extreme edge, normally the HR is extreme sharp even at the outer edges, i dont want to show this kind of artifact ( caused by my mistake )
for not giving a wrong impression of this outstanding lens. although i posted the outer edge to show that the 17tse still is very sharp even closed to the end of its image circle.
dynamic range of the sensor seems to be very similar. maybe a half stop advantage for the sinar e75, but the canon recovers highlights with less prone to color casts, so they will end up with a similar range, the e75 wants to be exposed with more care for its more aggressive highlight clipping.
sharpness of both lenses is clearly limited by the sensors, so a P65 will resolve way more detail with the HR lenses and will disqualify the canon far more, but i dont see the point for which use are this extreme resolutions. even my very big prints which exceed 2 meters look very great with the e75, i have very little desire for needing more. maybe if the prices are affortable thats ok for me, but just now i dont want to spend so much money for a feature i dont desire that much.
the next generation of canons probably will come very close to the e75 with its 33mp, ofcourse it will not scratch the p65 or the aptus10.
color rendition is "cooler" with the e75, which i prefer, although the canon gives under even the worst light conditions still good colors, where it can happen that the e75 fails ( certain types of fluorescent lights mixed with tungsten ).
my conclusion: the e75 is sharper, but not that much ( this would look different as described with higher resolution sensors ).
i printed out with very good results the canon till A1, which is for working situations more than enough and i wouldnt care to upinterpolate with photozoom much bigger sizes ( not forgetting to add grain ).
handling of the canon is great for its live view with grid, but sharpness has to be checked very careful at 10x magnification, and battery consumption is high with the canon and live view. for a day of work one better goes with 4 batteries, meanwhile with the e75 rarely i need more than 2.
the artec handles great too for smooth composition on the groundglas, sharpness control is not necessary if the object and the lenses are well adjusted,-
the workflow with it is much more on the 4x5" side,- which may like architectural shooters who come from film, as i hope.
i sharpened the e75 with 150% and 0,4 radius and the canon ( a bit more for its AA filter ) with 200% and 0,5 radius.
all images taken with f11.
17tse, 12mm up, canon 5dmk2,
23HR, 12mm up, sinar e75lv, artek , distortion with ALPA plugin corrected
23HR, 12mm up, sinar e75lv, artek , ( without distortion correction )
crop, center detail, image at the bottom is the e75 with the 23HR, at top the 17tse
crop2 only the 17tse, left upper corner
in this image i up-interpolated the 22mp canon in photoshop to app. the same size than the 33mp e75 image,
to be able to compare a bit better the "Real" detail difference between the two systems.
i uprezzed the canon to the same horizontal size of 6666 pixels.
as in image 1 i sharpened the e75 with 150% and 0,4 radius and the canon ( a bit more for its AA filter ) with 200% and 0,5 radius.
17tse with the 5dmks
23hr with the e75
and two crops, one time from the left side to the right side, the image at the bottom is the 23HR again,
and the second image from top to bottom. in the brass at the botttom i.m.o. the sharpness diffeence is mostly visible.
right image is the 23HR.