[mst]

Oldie but Goldie:



http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/67...fs173528ff



-- Markus

[Martin_MM]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1317768265' post='12086']



Oldie but Goldie:



-- Markus

[/quote]





Wow, precisely..! I didn´t expect such a great sharpness from the wide-angle designed back in the 90s...! Pleasant surprise compared to Mr.Shit (the 18-35 lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[frank]

So, the 17-35 is indeed better than the 16-35 a lot in IQ, on D3x.

[PuxaVida]

Finally... Thanks a lot for the review Markus!... We've seen almost all famous UWAs on FF in here, but this one was missing... Now I have no excuses to decide for an UWA...



Compared to the Zeiss 21mm, I'd say wow!... Zeiss is one of a kind in terms of close-up capabilities, T* coating and BQ, but except for the corner performance on wide apertures, this zoom is really something compared to it. And the sample images show that the bokeh is also decent for such a wide angle...



Serkan

[Martin_MM]

Yes, thanks, Markus - very nice job. Actually, you have covered pretty much everything in the FX lens offer by now, haven´t you?



Except the long telephoto lenses, of course.... BTW, is there any chance you will ever review some of the 200-400/f4, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500 and 600/f4...? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Brightcolours]

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.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1317804496' post='12099']

Yes, thanks, Markus - very nice job. Actually, you have covered pretty much everything in the FX lens offer by now, haven´t you?



Except the long telephoto lenses, of course.... BTW, is there any chance you will ever review some of the 200-400/f4, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500 and 600/f4...? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

The longer lenses are a problem to test, due to the needed space. For 600mm you need at least 32 meters distance.... I think 400mm is the "usual" limit for photozone to test?

[mst]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1317805625' post='12102']

Time and time again your ratings do not really match, even in quite objective criteria.

[/quote]



We simply rely on the rating police to find mismatches <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Seriously, though: the Canon is not sealed by itself, it requires a filter to be fully sealed. That doesn't justify a 5-star rating IMO.



None of the other two matches the Nikkor in center resolution. It's debatable whether this alone justifies a 3.5-star rating, but my benchmark were the other two Nikkors. I clearly see the 17-35 ahead of the 16-35 VR (a 3-star lens).



-- Markus

[mst]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1317805839' post='12104']

The longer lenses are a problem to test, due to the needed space. For 600mm you need at least 32 meters distance.... I think 400mm is the "usual" limit for photozone to test?

[/quote]



Indoor testing over here is currently limited to 300mm (on FX).



-- Markus

[mst]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1317804496' post='12099']

Actually, you have covered pretty much everything in the FX lens offer by now, haven´t you?

[/quote]



Not really ... still quite a few lenses on my list of upcoming FX reviews <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus