Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: marcmccalmont on January 25, 2009, 12:59:45 pm
-
In the pursuit of the "Holy Grail" I tested the Conorus modified Contax/Zeiss 24-85N and my Canon 24-105 IS on a 5DII
Next week I will test the Contax/Zeiss 35-70 3.4
Tripod, MLU, live view manual focus, cable release, matched histograms etc.
Edit; I turned off all sharpening in DxO
Marc
Canon 24-105 IS:
[attachment=11118:24_105_0..._DxO_raw.jpg]
RAW file: https://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?acti...273ec52d3994c2d (https://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=batch_download&send_id=645712264&email=c6d2b6047626156fc273ec52d3994c2d)
Contax 24-85N:
[attachment=11119:24_85_0895_DxO_raw.jpg]
RAW file: http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?acti...565352dfdb97fe8 (http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=batch_download&send_id=645709044&email=2e683ac326ec1c10d565352dfdb97fe8)
-
and what do you think ?
-
and what do you think ?
I think the Canon is as sharp if not slightly sharper than the Contax so I'm keeping the Canon because it has IS and is supported by DxO
Both images look almost identical in color etc. I was surprised that both lenses are so similar.
Marc
-
I wonder if a limited resolution painting (I guess that's what the subject is) makes a good test target.
-
I wonder if a limited resolution painting (I guess that's what the subject is) makes a good test target.
I also shot a Norman Koren test target same results
Canon 24-105 IS
[attachment=11143:24_105_1..._DxO_raw.jpg]
Contax 35-70 3.4
[attachment=11144:35_70_1045_DxO_raw.jpg]
35-70 is a tad sharper not too much
My conclusion is a good copy of a Canon 24-105 IS will hold its own against Contax lenses
So ends my quest for the "Holy Grail"
Marc
-
I'm not familiar with this test target.
Your target looks like a water painting. It's not from a natural object, nor a geometry stuff. Cold you elaborate why you choose this target and how to judge the results?
I also shot a Norman Koren test target same results
Canon 24-105 IS
[attachment=11143:24_105_1..._DxO_raw.jpg]
Contax 35-70 3.4
[attachment=11144:35_70_1045_DxO_raw.jpg]
35-70 is a tad sharper not too much
My conclusion is a good copy of a Canon 24-105 IS will hold its own against Contax lenses
So ends my quest for the "Holy Grail"
Marc
-
I think also that a painting is not the best to test a lens
-
I once tied myself in knots evaluating the Zeiss 25mm (using an adaptor) versus the Canon 24mm T&S and the Canon 24-105mm at the 24mm setting. This was with a full frame 1Ds MkII. At anything less than infinity and at f5.6 the 24-105 seemed to be very, very slightly sharper than the other two, but with fractionally greater distortion and vignetting. At f8.0 or smaller, or at infinity, I couldn't see any meaningful difference between them.
It was at about this time that I vowed (sadly for the 100th time) that I'd stop chasing illusory quality gains and concentrate instead on trying to take better real-world photographs, which in practise usually means waking up earlier, seeking permission to photograph from private property, travelling further, experimenting more with studio lighting, looking harder at the scene in front of me, returning to a location multiple times in different light, being pushier in street scenes, etc. In fact almost anything apart from fretting about lenses which looking back over forty years of photography has actually yielded very few dividends!
-
I once tied myself in knots evaluating the Zeiss 25mm (using an adaptor) versus the Canon 24mm T&S and the Canon 24-105mm at the 24mm setting. This was with a full frame 1Ds MkII. At anything less than infinity and at f5.6 the 24-105 seemed to be very, very slightly sharper than the other two, but with fractionally greater distortion and vignetting. At f8.0 or smaller, or at infinity, I couldn't see any meaningful difference between them.
It was at about this time that I vowed (sadly for the 100th time) that I'd stop chasing illusory quality gains and concentrate instead on trying to take better real-world photographs, which in practise usually means waking up earlier, seeking permission to photograph from private property, travelling further, experimenting more with studio lighting, looking harder at the scene in front of me, returning to a location multiple times in different light, being pushier in street scenes, etc. In fact almost anything apart from fretting about lenses which looking back over forty years of photography has actually yielded very few dividends!
Good point! I have read so much that the new higher resolution cameras need the best glass I decided to evaluate it myself. Early this month I paid a taxi over $100 to get to a location before the sun came up!
Marc
-
I think also that a painting is not the best to test a lens
I used the painting because I am reproducing it (2 birds with one stone!) a Norman Koren test chart and I will take some landscape photos for a final evaluation but so far the Zeiss doesn't "clobber" the Canon. Made the post to verify I am not insane with my initial conclusion.
Marc
-
I also think to buy Zess lenses for Canon or Nikon (specially the 35mm f/2) but actually I am not sure they are really better
-
I used the painting because I am reproducing it (2 birds with one stone!) a Norman Koren test chart and I will take some landscape photos for a final evaluation but so far the Zeiss doesn't "clobber" the Canon. Made the post to verify I am not insane with my initial conclusion.
Marc
If you do this just for yourself, by all mean, but if you want to share it and make a point, then better do it more seriously.
I'm sure you can find some natural targets to show the basic truth and still manage to build a "Norman Koren test chart".
-
If you do this just for yourself, by all mean, but if you want to share it and make a point, then better do it more seriously.
I'm sure you can find some natural targets to show the basic truth and still manage to build a "Norman Koren test chart".
Excellent point
Marc