Olsen Posted January 9, 2011 Share #1 Posted January 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fumbling with my "new" M9 have done some comparisons: 1) M9 with WATE at 16 mm, 1/30 - 5,6 ISO1600, Auto W/B file at 100% right out of the box cropped at the middle of the image. 2) Canon 1Ds III w/16-35 mm 2,8L II at 16 mm 1/25 - 5,6 ISO1600 Auto W/B file at 100% right out of the box, cropped at the middle of the image. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/141319-m9-wwate-1ds-iii-w16-35-mm-28l-ii/?do=findComment&comment=1553373'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Hi Olsen, Take a look here M9 w/WATE - 1Ds III w/16-35 mm 2,8L II. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
k-hawinkler Posted January 9, 2011 Share #2 Posted January 9, 2011 Fumbling with my "new" M9 have done some comparisons: 1) M9 with WATE at 16 mm, 1/30 - 5,6 ISO1600, Auto W/B file at 100% right out of the box cropped at the middle of the image. 2) Canon 1Ds III w/16-35 mm 2,8L II at 16 mm 1/25 - 5,6 ISO1600 Auto W/B file at 100% right out of the box, cropped at the middle of the image. Thanks for posting. The first image looks more natural and pleasing to me. k-hawinkler Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted January 9, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted January 9, 2011 Neither of the two cameras hit the right white balance, but that is a small detail which is easy to fix for both of them. I had problems making sure that the two cameras/lenses did indeed focus at the same distance, but after some fumbling I think I managed it. The problem is that there isn't a distance scale on the 16-35 mm 2,8L II lens beond one meter. I had to rely only on the AF. The difference in lens resolution is even greater along the edges, but the test I have done so far I am not sure I have the same focus distance. My fast conclusion is that 'Leica makes better lenses' while 'Canon makes better cameras'. But Leica M9 is close.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 9, 2011 Share #4 Posted January 9, 2011 Neither of the two cameras hit the right white balance, but that is a small detail which is easy to fix for both of them. I had problems making sure that the two cameras/lenses did indeed focus at the same distance, but after some fumbling I think I managed it. The problem is that there isn't a distance scale on the 16-35 mm 2,8L II lens beond one meter. I had to rely only on the AF. The difference in lens resolution is even greater along the edges, but the test I have done so far I am not sure I have the same focus distance. My fast conclusion is that 'Leica makes better lenses' while 'Canon makes better cameras'. But Leica M9 is close.... Thanks. I certainly agree with your assessment of Leica glass. Could you use LiveView at 200% to carefully select the focus distance on the Canon? That's what I would do on my Nikon D3 or D300 by controlling them with CCP 2 from a laptop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 10, 2011 Share #5 Posted January 10, 2011 While I do believe the Leica Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 mm Asph at 16 mm is better than the Canon EF 16-35 mm L II at 16 mm, I can hardly believe the Canon lens was that bad ... maybe at full aperture but not at f/5.6. Are you sure you've hit the focus properly? Auto-focus with a super-wide-angle lens on an SLR camera in poor light usually is all over the place (and manual focusing is hardly any better)—much unlike rangefinder focusing. And regarding white balance—AWB is not intended to cope with tungsten light. It's meant for daylight only. So don't blame the cameras for not getting the white balance right. It's a user error ... however easy enough to fix. Do not rely on AWB under tungsten or fluorescent light! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semla Posted January 10, 2011 Share #6 Posted January 10, 2011 How about taking another picture but using Live View + contrast AF or manual adjustment? EF 16-35mm II has very good sharpness in the center. It's weakness is at the borders. Besides 16-35 is a zoom. Isn't Tri-Elmar like three primes stacked in the same housing? Canon Lens: Zooms - Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM (Tested) - SLRgear.com! Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L II (full format) - Review / Test Report - Analysis Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens ISO 12233 Resolution Chart Results It's easy to find tests done on Canon, Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss lenses on the web showing graphs and figures from different and hopefully independent sources. I have hard time finding similar tests (=laboratory tests?) for Leica lenses except from Leica. Maybe I am just searching in a wrong way. However, it makes it more difficult for me to compare sharpness of a Leica lens in relation to lenses from other manufacturers using the same test setup and procedure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted January 10, 2011 Share #7 Posted January 10, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) It is interesting: above linked tests show OPPOSITE, DIFFERENT results about border sharpness at 16mm and f/5.6... SLR Gear vs two others... I also know from my own experiences - there may happen different samples of the same lens from Canon, with different quality... And finally - attached samples showing difference in sharpness - do not surprise me, also based on my personal experience with 5D II + 16-35mm II and M9 + WATE. Using M9 + CV 15mm kills them both in center, but it has issues with color shift and strong vignetting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semla Posted January 10, 2011 Share #8 Posted January 10, 2011 It is interesting: above linked tests show OPPOSITE, DIFFERENT results about border sharpness at 16mm and f/5.6... SLR Gear vs two others... I also know from my own experiences - there may happen different samples of the same lens from Canon, with different quality... And finally - attached samples showing difference in sharpness - do not surprise me, also based on my personal experience with 5D II + 16-35mm II and M9 + WATE. Using M9 + CV 15mm kills them both in center, but it has issues with color shift and strong vignetting. I don't see SLRgear presenting opposite result about border sharpness than others? The borders are worst wide open and improve when stopped down to f5.6. Did you look at the full frame results in SLR Gear? I guess you did not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan_brittenson Posted January 10, 2011 Share #9 Posted January 10, 2011 The 16-35 isn't too much to write home about, nor are any other Canon wide angles, and I think I used them all on the 1Ds and 1Ds2 - and they clearly couldn't keep up with the latter. There's a reason people used to adapt Zeiss C/Y 21's to Canons. The WATE is a better lens at any aperture than the old C/Y 21 (not sure about the newer Distagons in EF mount) so the result shown above isn't surprising at all. In fact it's exactly what I'd expect. The lenses simply aren't in the same league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semla Posted January 10, 2011 Share #10 Posted January 10, 2011 The 16-35 isn't too much to write home about, nor are any other Canon wide angles, and I think I used them all on the 1Ds and 1Ds2 - and they clearly couldn't keep up with the latter. There's a reason people used to adapt Zeiss C/Y 21's to Canons. The WATE is a better lens at any aperture than the old C/Y 21 (not sure about the newer Distagons in EF mount) so the result shown above isn't surprising at all. In fact it's exactly what I'd expect. The lenses simply aren't in the same league. That was not the point. The point was relying on AF in low-light might introduce focus error masking the optimal sharpness you can get with 16-35 II at f5.6 in the center. I would be surprised if WATE wasn't better than a zoom costing 3-4 times less. Compairing it with a prime such as TS-E 17, TS-E 24 or EF 24 II would be more nuanced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted January 10, 2011 Share #11 Posted January 10, 2011 Besides 16-35 is a zoom. Isn't Tri-Elmar like three primes stacked in the same housing? As far as I remember, the WATE is a zoom. The MATE is "three-primes". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semla Posted January 10, 2011 Share #12 Posted January 10, 2011 As far as I remember, the WATE is a zoom. The MATE is "three-primes". Thanks. I stand corrected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 10, 2011 Share #13 Posted January 10, 2011 As far as I remember, the WATE is a zoom. The MATE is "three-primes". How does that work? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share #14 Posted January 10, 2011 I am pretty sure that the focus is correct for both cameras. No, the 16-35 mm 2,8L II is not a great lens. The WATE certainly is. But Canon makes several excellent wide angle lenses that suits FF-DSLR very good. Like the legendary 35 mm 1,4L and the new 24 mm 1,4L II. Please note that the file from 1Ds III has a larger area. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 10, 2011 Share #15 Posted January 10, 2011 I have the 16-18-21 f/4 WATE and the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens that I consider both to be great performers. However, the WATE is just so much smaller and easier to carry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted January 10, 2011 Share #16 Posted January 10, 2011 I don't see SLRgear presenting opposite result about border sharpness than others? The borders are worst wide open and improve when stopped down to f5.6. Did you look at the full frame results in SLR Gear? I guess you did not. Thanks, I just compared full frame and crop. Interesting... Anyway - my 16-35mm II was so unacceptable, that I immediately replaced it with 35 f/1.4 L. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semla Posted January 10, 2011 Share #17 Posted January 10, 2011 I am not arguing EF 16-35L II is a great lens. There are certainly sharper lenses. But the difference between Olsen's image and the results from the links make me wonder. At the center and at f5.6. Two of three links show similiar sharpness in the center for EF 16-35mm at f5.6 as EF 24L II and EF 35L. In the third link, EF 24L II and 35L has advantage, but still 16-35L II is considered as excellent in the center. Even EF 85L II shows similar sharpness in the center at f5.6 as EF 16-35L II. Some of the reasonable conclusions I can think of are: If WATE would have been measured with the test setups used in the three links, it would be off the charts iff WATE is considerably sharper than EF 35L, EF 24L II or EF 85L II at f5.6. The test setups used in the three links are incorrect. Olsen has a bad copy of EF 16-35L II. The test setups used in the links are different and more accurate than Olsen's test setup. Copies of EF 16-35L II used in the links are "normal" or "better than normal". And I can further guess they used RAW images. When you say "100% right out of the box", do you mean RAW or JPEG? A bigger problem for more scientific comparisons is the fact that there are virtually no published sharpness characteristics of Leica lenses to be found on Internet? The links above certainly have no Leica lenses in there test results. I cannot even find a link where just Leica lenses have been measured in some laboratory-like fashion. Except from Leica themselves. I find that really odd and interesting. Am I the only one wondering how come? If you know good sites in which Leica lenses have been measured with the same test setup and procedure as lenses from Canon, Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss lenses, please do share them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share #18 Posted January 10, 2011 To compare WATE with Canon's 35 mm 1,4L is not a fair comparison. To compare Canon's 35 mm 1,4L II v Leica 35 mm 1,4 Lux is more relevant. But I don't have the latter. It could well be that I have a bad 16-35 mm 2.8L II - example. But correlating my example with tests on the Net it comes out as 'normal'. So, I don't think so. Regarding focusing: I had to find an item that my Canon 1Ds III would focus on. I had to check this, not only on the lcd display, but by checking several alternative files on my PC screen. That said, I find the Canon AF to be very reliable under these circumstances. After having established a reliable focus of the Canon I manually focused the WATE. I shot RAW files which I converted in C1 for Leica and DPP for Canon, and converted to the largest jpg file available. A typical Canon 1Ds III file is 25,5 MB while the Leica M9 file is 34,7 MB when the two cameras are in ISO1600 mode. The difference is due to noise. I did no modifications of the files, just converting. What you look at is the 'raw material' before post processing. Please note that the Canon file can be made smaller - and sharper to match the M9... I have not done this (simply havn't the time), but looking at Reids's reviews of comparisons of D5 II and 1Ds III small differences in size can be made into 'considderable' more sharpness by downscaling. Many test sites downscale files to match eachother's size. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share #19 Posted January 10, 2011 I did not find any of the tests above instructive. I think it is best to 1)compare MTF charts and 2)systematic tests with the same source. Like Sean Reid Welcome to ReidReviews who I can recommend. He has made a very thorough test of the WATE on M8, at least. Or Castleman: Photography Equipment Reviews Leica has a very good file of MTF charts available on all their lenses. You can download the WATE specifications here: Leica Camera AG - Photography - LEICA TRI-ELMAR-M 16-18-21 mm f/4 ASPH. Canon's MTF charts you can find here: Technical report | List of reports on exhibit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_R Posted January 10, 2011 Share #20 Posted January 10, 2011 If we talk about downsizing - when downsized to Full HD - then even Panasonic 7-14mm is great lens! About some Leica lenses tests, not WATE, but maybe will interest some of you: Leica Summicron-M 28 mm f/2.0 Asph: Test Leica Summicron-M 28 mm f/2.0 Asph - Rozdzielczość obrazu - Test obiektywu - Optyczne.pl Leica Summicron-M 50 mm f/2.0: Test Leica Summicron-M 50 mm f/2.0 - Rozdzielczość obrazu - Test obiektywu - Optyczne.pl Leica Apo-Summicron-M 75 mm f/2.0 Asph: Test Leica Apo-Summicron-M 75 mm f/2.0 Asph - Rozdzielczość obrazu - Test obiektywu - Optyczne.pl (open them in Google Translator) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.