wide_zoom_test Photo Gallery by Craig Lamson at pbase.com

A comparison of 4 major wide angle zoom lenses on the full frame Canon 1DsMkII. The lenses tested include the Canon 17-40 f4L, the Nikon 17-35 f2.8, the Canon 16-35 f2.8L and the Sigma 15-30 f3.5. All photos appear in that order and each will be labeled on the right side of the frame.

Critical focusing for this series was done in manual mode, shooting tethered to the computer. Each lens was shot at least 5 times and each file opened in photoshop and viewed at 200% and the focus adjusted until the best possible focus at the center of the frame at wide open was obtained.

What you are seeing is a portion of my prop room and the view was about 10' wide. The lighting was simple, a 2000W Mole Richardson zip and a 1000w Mole Richardson spot bounced off of the ceiling. I have also sprinkled a number of food type items in the frame that contain fine type to help see the fine detail each lens can produce.

The raw files were processed in C1 3.7 with all NR, banding reduction and sharpening turned off. The camera color balance was set to 2900K and the files were processed without additional color correction or exposure correction. Exposure was by the camera meter for all lenses to the same setting.

All composite files are 100% center crops full width saved as lossless PNG files. To download to compare in Photoshop simply do a copy and then paste the file into a new document in photoshop. For this first round of test files I have also included donwsized full frame images at wide open and f11 to show falloff and distortion. These are JPG files.

Please note that I am doing this for my own satisfaction as well as for the friends who kindly loaned me the Nikon 17-35 and the Canon 16-35. My interest is trying to find the finest wide zoom for use on the MKII. I am more than happy to share my results, warts and all. But please refrain from telling me the test is flawed in this way or that. It is what it is, take it or leave it. I'm just a simple guy trying to do something very hard (if you dont believe that please give it a try yourself).

My plans are to shoot an number of different tests over the next few days and I will share the results. I will however be taking down each series of images before posting the next. I expect the images to last here for about 7 days so get them while the gettings good.

Thanks and enjoy
Craig Lamson

Your comments are welcomed.

full_frames

scene

post a comment

Guest		24-Dec-2005 18:48
Thanks for all the hard work. It is much appreciated! After people made a lot of comments about the 17-40 being 'bad' on full frame cameras, I was getting a bit worried. After these tests, I'm happy with what I've got! Thanks again.

Robert F. Tobler		27-Aug-2005 21:30
First of all, thanks for your effort. This is a really interesting comparison. It would also be nice (if you have the time), if you could also post some shots wide open. I would also suggest, that you try the Adobe Camera Raw converter which is built into Photoshop. You can adjust for chromatic aberration in this converter, and this works really well.

Guest		03-Aug-2005 02:57
I am in the market for a wide angle for my EOS 20D, and have been confused about which lens to get. Thank you for making these test images available. From these images, I am inclined to go with the Canon 17-40. I wish there was a test like this with a few more of the available lenses such as the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and the Tokina 17mm prime also. I know you're not a magazine though. :-)

Guest		17-Jun-2005 01:35
Its seems to me that the Sigma is sharper, has more contrast, and significantly less CA then the canon 17-40. However the Sigma also appears to have a warm yellow color cast to it, where the canon is a cooler more neutral rendition. I was looking at the unprocessed files, not the post processed sharpened version. Anyway, all of the lens seem to do a nice job over all. I'd be interested to see what other people think.

Andy		16-Jun-2005 19:50
Cool test, this scene... would you agree that it seems the 17-40 has the edge in this one? the sigma seems to be better in CA, but the canon seems to be sharper, has more contrast and presumably a better color rendition?

Guest		16-Jun-2005 17:47
Thank you for doing these tests! It's extremely useful information. Thanks for your efforts!

Andy		16-Jun-2005 09:55
GREAT! looking forward....

Craig Lamson		16-Jun-2005 01:14
Andy, I put an old copy of a Nikon 35mm F2 ai on the camera when I ran a series at 35mm so you will see that soon when I get to that stage of the posts. I also included the Canon 24-70 for the 24 and 35mm segments on one series.

Andy		15-Jun-2005 17:02
Andy 14-Jun-2005 12:17 Hi Craig, thank you so much for sharing. this will be a very useful comparison. may I just make a suggestion: just for curiosity it may be interesting to see how the zooms compare to a prime. Maybe the best of them to a reasonably priced 20 mm or so? Just so that one gets an idea of what one is "sacrificing" when using a zoom (if at all...) What do you think? Anyway: thanks again for sharing. Andy

Dave Werner		11-Jun-2005 20:58
Nice work. Thank you.

click on thumbnails for full image