10-05-2011, 09:07 AM
Again a mismatch on how you and Klaus rate lenses, Markus...
The Sony/Zeiss 16-35mm f2.8 SSM has quite a bit less barrel distortion. Wide open ar 16mm it is quite a bit better in the corners and border. Only wide open at 35mm it is performing a bit less. Measured CA is a bit better too.
The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 has a tad lower barrel distortion, lower vignetting, better borders and corners at 16-21mm, and a lot lower CA.
You score the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 3.5 stars. Klaus scores the better Sony/Zeiss 3 stars. Klaus scores the comparable Canon 2.5 stars.
Build quality....
All 3 lenses are built well, the Sony/Zeiss having a tad more use of plastic it seems. All have similar motors. The Canon AF's exceptionally fast according to Klaus. The Canon is dust/moisture sealed.
The Sony gets 4 stars. The Nikon gets 4.5 stars. The sealed Canon gets 4.5 stars.
Time and time again your ratings do not really match, even in quite objective criteria.
The Sony/Zeiss 16-35mm f2.8 SSM has quite a bit less barrel distortion. Wide open ar 16mm it is quite a bit better in the corners and border. Only wide open at 35mm it is performing a bit less. Measured CA is a bit better too.
The Canon 16-35mm f2.8 has a tad lower barrel distortion, lower vignetting, better borders and corners at 16-21mm, and a lot lower CA.
You score the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 3.5 stars. Klaus scores the better Sony/Zeiss 3 stars. Klaus scores the comparable Canon 2.5 stars.
Build quality....
All 3 lenses are built well, the Sony/Zeiss having a tad more use of plastic it seems. All have similar motors. The Canon AF's exceptionally fast according to Klaus. The Canon is dust/moisture sealed.
The Sony gets 4 stars. The Nikon gets 4.5 stars. The sealed Canon gets 4.5 stars.
Time and time again your ratings do not really match, even in quite objective criteria.